Cập nhật thông tin chi tiết về Call Of Duty: Wwii Feedback And Bug Reporting mới nhất trên website Phusongyeuthuong.org. Hy vọng nội dung bài viết sẽ đáp ứng được nhu cầu của bạn, chúng tôi sẽ thường xuyên cập nhật mới nội dung để bạn nhận được thông tin nhanh chóng và chính xác nhất.
You have an open chat session in the queue
We’ve detected that you’re currently in a chat session. If you wish to continue, you’ll need to close your chat session before you can open a new case.
Note: if you close your chat session, please wait at least five minutes for our systems to update and allow you to open a new case.
You have a chat session in progress
We’ve detected that you’re currently in a chat session. If you wish to continue, you’ll need to close your current chat session and then go to My Cases and close your case before you can start a new chat session.
Note: if you close your chat session, please wait at least five minutes for our systems to update and allow you to open a new case.
MY CASES
You have an open case.
You currently have an open case with us, and you may only have one support case open at a time. If you open a new case, your open case will be CLOSED and you will be placed at the end of the queue. We recommend waiting for your current case to be resolved
MY CASES
Are you sure you want to close your case?
Starting a new session will CLOSE your open case and place you in the back of the queue. You can always wait for your current ticket to be resolved.
MY CASES
Your ticket has been closed.
Aachen, Ardennes Forest, Gibraltar, Pointe Du Hoc: Iconic Locations In The Call Of Duty: Wwii Multiplayer Beta
We caught up with Morgan during the filming of the “Brotherhood of Heroes” documentary, to discuss the historical importance of these battlefields. Below are his concise summaries of the importance of these locations during World War II.
AACHEN
Aachen stands out because it was an early urban battle for the United States Army. The Army had endured their first urban battle in Cherbourg, France, prior to this, immediately after the D-Day landings, but the Battle of Aachen was another early test for them. As the Allies continued to push onward to Germany, on October 2, 1944, elements of the 26 th Infantry Regiment of the 1 st Infantry Division closed in a surprise, hurried move to get within striking distance of the downtown city center of Aachen, a city on Germany’s western border.
The 26 th maneuvered into a position where they could cut the city off, surround it, and then reduce it. Then, over the next 19 days, heavy combat ensued through the streets of the city. The German force defending it consisted of about 13,000 men, and they supplemented that number with 5,000 Volkssturm – males between the ages of 16 and 60 who were pressed into military service.
While the aggregate number of American fighting forces in Aachen approached 100,000 soldiers, it was mainly the 26 th Infantry Regiment doing the heavy lifting, in terms of penetrating in the city streets.
After battling for 19 days, with much destruction across the city, Aachen became the first big German city to be captured by US forces during World War II.
ARDENNES FOREST
The Ardennes Forest was the location for the Battle of the Bulge, beginning on December 16, 1944, and extending all the way into January 1945. The Battle of the Bulge did not occur entirely in the Ardennes Forest, but it was a significant component of what transpired in that battle, and at that stage of the war it became the largest land battle the United States military fought in during World War II.
The Battle of the Bulge plan originated from the German side, with the goal of Germany making one last dash to recapture the port city of Antwerp in Belgium. Adolf Hitler himself thought that by launching this major offensive operation at the spot where the U.S. 12th Army Group met on its flank with British Army Group, they could drive a wedge between the British and Americans, which would then trap the entire British Expeditionary Force.
The German Army also aspired to eventually include a series of fighter sweeps designated as Operation Bodenplatte, an attack by Luftwaffe forces on American fighter bases in France, and the thought was that the combination of all of these elements would so thoroughly and significantly weaken the Allied resolve, after their battles in Normandy and across France, that the Allied fighting forces would then have to enter into a peace agreement with Germany. If that goal was achieved, Germany could then shift to concentrate on fighting in the east against the Soviet Union.
Of course, the Allies had other plans.
Throughout the course of the second World War the British had a presence at Gibraltar. The British had also fortified Gibraltar making it difficult for Germany to project their naval strength into the Mediterranean.
And yet, the situation early on looked promising for Germany and its allies, because of Germany’s alliance with Italy during this time. And the combination of the Italian Naval Forces and German Naval Forces had the potential to project a significant amount of power in the Mediterranean to control it. But by September 1943, this was not to be.
Germany also thought at the outset that they would have the benefit of Vichy French naval forces, and that the combination of Vichy French naval forces, Italian naval Forces, and German naval forces meant that they would be able to take a hold in the Mediterranean.
Due to the British forces stationed there, Gibraltar was always under Allied control during the war. but there’s an important factor to consider here, and that is that the Government of Generalissimo Francisco Franco in Spain also controlled part of Gibraltar: Spanish Gibraltar. And Franco’s Spanish Government was technically neutral, although they were neutral with a very strong relationship with Germany. Having British Gibraltar right there next to Spanish Gibraltar, a declared neutral with a German ally brought a balance to the point where the Mediterranean and the Atlantic meet. And that is critical to the outcome of the war because it decided that there will be no German, Italian, and Vichy French domination of the Mediterranean.
POINTE DU HOC
The Germans had built a large number of defensive bunker networks and complexes on the five-mile wide cove that would ultimately become known as Omaha Beach. Twelve of these bunkers were specifically referred to as WNs, WN meaning Widerstandsnest Resistance Point. Theses WN complexes were spaced out at about 1200 yards apart so that machine gun fire could interlock from each one to the next. These were used for local defense to prevent boats or tanks from rolling up onto the beach.
Then they supplemented those locations with anti-ship batteries. Battery being simply a position for artillery that could project accurate artillery fire out into the open water. And it was artillery fire of sufficient caliber to penetrate the type of armor that you would find on, for example, a battleship. The Germans spaced these out at intervals of about 12 miles. So, in combination there were the local strong points in the form of the Widerstandsnests every 1200 yards, and then artillery batteries every 12 to 15 miles.
Pointe Du Hoc was one of those artillery batteries. Created in 1942, it was positioned three miles off to the west of Omaha Beach, and on it the Germans mounted six French 155mm long range guns there. These weapons were captured in 1940 when Germany invaded France, and were some of the best long-range cannons in the world at this time.
Germany made use of these high-powered weapons and placed them in position in circular concrete mounting tables that permitted the guns to rotate through 360 degrees, meaning the guns could deliver a fire mission to the east or to the west. The ability of the guns to fire to the west and the east made them particularly lethal, and they posed a clear and present danger to any force landing on Omaha Beach, or any force landing on what would eventually be called Utah Beach.
Because of this threat, the U.S. Army designated that the Second Ranger Battalion would conduct an amphibious landing at Pointe Du Hoc beneath the guns, as the area has cliffs that rise 100 feet above the water.
The 2nd Ranger Battalion went on to land 225 men out of 9 landing craft at the base of Pointe Du Hoc and worked their way to the top. The plan was that they would move into the battery area, engage the enemy, capture the guns to prevent them from being used against ships on D-Day. That was the plan. However, when the Rangers battled their way to the top, they discovered that the guns had been moved, and that timbers covered in camouflage netting were left in their place.
A fierce battle took place at Pointe Du Hoc, with the Rangers clashing frequently with the German forces that were stationed there. Eventually, the Rangers were able to push inward to defend the coastal highway and establish a roadblock. Leonard Lomell, the First Sergeant of D Company, who saw deep tire ruts in a hedgerow-enclosed cattle path and followed those ruts all the way down and found five of the guns. There had been six, but one of them had been heavily damaged in that bombing raid in late April, so the Germans had abandoned it.
The guns were unoccupied, so Lomell with Staff Sergeant Jack Kuhn moved from gun to gun using thermite grenades to disable the weapons. The 2 nd Ranger Battalion had two jobs, and one was to neutralize the battery and the second was to set up a roadblock, and they did both before 10:00 am on D-Day. But then the sun went down on Tuesday, June 6, 1944, and overnight before dawn on Wednesday, June 7 th, the Germans counter-attacked them twice and drove them back from the roadblock, all the way back to Pointe Du Hoc in fact and almost overran their command post.
The Rangers were holding on with a very narrow perimeter until a destroyer, the USS Satterlee, provided direct fire support for them, preventing the Germans from overrunning them. It was a very dramatic battle, and out of the 225 Rangers who landed on Pointe du Hoc, only 79 men were capable of walking out under their own power.
Legal Immigration And Adjustment Of Status Report
On March 6, 2017, the President issued a Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security on Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits, Ensuring Enforcement of All Laws for Entry into the United States, and Increasing Transparency among Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government and for the American People.
The Memorandum directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to issue quarterly reports detailing the number of adjustments of immigration status. During the reporting period, data are disaggregated by type of adjustment, type and detailed class of admission, and country of nationality. The Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS), located within the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, prepared this report to comply with the President’s directive.
The report describes legal immigration and adjustments of status and provides links to data tables within four categories:
Lawful Permanent Residents
Refugee Arrivals
Naturalizations
Nonimmigrant (I-94) Admissions
Historically, OIS has reported on immigration benefits annually, with data extraction beginning 3 months after the end of the fiscal year. This quarterly report provides information about legal migration flows and adjustments of status based on data available one month after the end of the reporting period. OIS will provide revised figures for previous quarters in future reports as additional data becomes available. The numbers in this report reflect revisions to previously published numbers.
Lawful Permanent Residents
Recent Trends
Approximately 1 256,000 foreign nationals obtained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in the first quarter (Q1) of Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 (see Table 1A). Over 117,000 foreign nationals entered the United States as new arrivals, unchanged from FY 2019 Q1. Lastly, over 139,000 foreign nationals adjusted status from within the United States, compared to over 140,000 in FY 2019 Q1.
Countries of Origin
Thirty-seven percent of new LPRs were from six top countries of nationality: Mexico, the People’s Republic of China (China), Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, India, and the Philippines (see Table 1A). In FY 2019 Q1, the top six countries (Mexico, China, India, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and the Philippines) represented 39 percent of new LPRs.
Classes and Modes of Admission
Forty-five percent of new LPRs obtained status as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, followed by 20 percent who obtained status under family-sponsored preference, and another 20 percent who obtained status under employment-based preference (see Table 1B). Diversity and refugees, the next largest classes of admission, accounted for 5 and 4 percent of new LPRs, respectively. In FY 2018 Q1, immediate relatives, family-sponsored preferences, and diversity admissions represented similar percentages of new LPRs as the current year, while employment-based and refugee admissions had represented 15 and 10 percent of new LPRs, respectively.
Data Sources
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided LPR data from Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) and Electronic Immigration System (ELIS). 2 CLAIMS includes information from the DHS Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which is used by applicants living in the United States. ELIS includes information from applications for LPR status by applicants living abroad. ELIS automatically confirms the applicant’s status from the Department of State Form DS-230, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, or Form DS-260, Electronic Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration.
Refugee Arrivals
Recent Trends
Over 3,000 refugees were admitted to the United States in FY 2020 Q1 (see Table 2), a 43 percent decline from FY 2019 Q1, when nearly 5,700 refugees were admitted.
Countries of Origin
Eighty-one percent of refugees were from six top countries of nationality: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo), Burma, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Moldova (see Table 2). In FY 2019 Q1, the six top countries of nationality (Congo, Ukraine, Burma, Eritrea, Afghanistan, and Burundi) accounted for 90 percent of refugee arrivals.
Data Sources
Refugee data presented in Table 2 are from the Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS) of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the U.S. Department of State.
Naturalizations
Recent Trends
Over 216,000 persons naturalized in FY 2020 Q1 (see Table 3), a 24 percent increase over the same quarter of the previous year.
Countries of Origin
Thirty-nine percent of naturalizations consisted of persons from six top countries of nationality: Mexico, India, the Philippines, Cuba, China, and Vietnam (see Table 3). In FY 2019 Q1, the top six countries Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Cuba, and Vietnam) accounted for 40 percent of naturalizations.
Data Sources
Naturalization data presented in Table 3 come from administrative records of DHS Form N-400 applications recorded in the USCIS CLAIMS and ELIS data systems.
I-94 Nonimmigrant Admissions
At the time of this report, data on nonimmigrant admissions were available for FY 2019. 3 Detailed data on nonimmigrants in this report are based on I-94/I-94W information, which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses to record certain nonimmigrant admissions (collectively referred to as I-94 nonimmigrant admissions); 4 future reports will also provide detailed data on non-I-94 admissions.
Recent Trends
In FY 2019, DHS recorded a total (i.e., including non-I-94 admissions) of over 186 million total nonimmigrant admissions to the United States, including over 81 million I-94 nonimmigrant admissions (see Table 4B), nearly unchanged from FY 2018.
Countries of Origin
Six countries of nationality accounted for 62 percent of I-94 nonimmigrant admissions: Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, and Brazil (see Table 4A). In FY 2018, these top six countries (with South Korea in place of Brazil) accounted for 61 percent of I-94 admissions.
Classes of Admission
Ninety-one percent of I-94 nonimmigrant admissions comprised of visitors entering for pleasure or business, followed by temporary workers and their families (5 percent), and students and their families (2 percent; see Table 4B). These same top classes of admissions accounted for similar proportions of I-94 nonimmigrant admissions in FY 2018.
Data Sources
Data on total nonimmigrant admissions come from DHS workload estimates. Detailed data on I-94 nonimmigrant admissions are based on DHS Form I-94/I-94W arrival records recorded in the CBP TECS database.
Endnotes
Numbers in this report are usually rounded to the nearest thousand. For exact numbers, refer to the data tables.
USCIS has built the ELIS electronic case management system as a part of its Transformation Program – an agency-wide modernization initiative to enable end-to-end electronic benefit case processing. Currently, ELIS receives and processes a variety of USCIS form types; the data for this report are obtained from USCIS records and associated data for the immigrant visa packets (upon arrival in the United States) and the Application for Naturalization (Form N-400).
The nonimmigrant admission data are always a quarter behind due to CBP’s data reporting closeout process.
Previous quarterly data for this report are available in the OIS Reading Room under Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status Report Quarterly Data.
Return to OIS home page.
Call Of Duty: Wwii Feedback And Bug Reporting
You have an open chat session in the queue
We’ve detected that you’re currently in a chat session. If you wish to continue, you’ll need to close your chat session before you can open a new case.
Note: if you close your chat session, please wait at least five minutes for our systems to update and allow you to open a new case.
You have a chat session in progress
We’ve detected that you’re currently in a chat session. If you wish to continue, you’ll need to close your current chat session and then go to My Cases and close your case before you can start a new chat session.
Note: if you close your chat session, please wait at least five minutes for our systems to update and allow you to open a new case.
MY CASES
You have an open case.
You currently have an open case with us, and you may only have one support case open at a time. If you open a new case, your open case will be CLOSED and you will be placed at the end of the queue. We recommend waiting for your current case to be resolved
MY CASES
Are you sure you want to close your case?
Starting a new session will CLOSE your open case and place you in the back of the queue. You can always wait for your current ticket to be resolved.
MY CASES
Your ticket has been closed.
Bạn đang xem bài viết Call Of Duty: Wwii Feedback And Bug Reporting trên website Phusongyeuthuong.org. Hy vọng những thông tin mà chúng tôi đã chia sẻ là hữu ích với bạn. Nếu nội dung hay, ý nghĩa bạn hãy chia sẻ với bạn bè của mình và luôn theo dõi, ủng hộ chúng tôi để cập nhật những thông tin mới nhất. Chúc bạn một ngày tốt lành!