T1B

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:03 pm**

mvscal wrote:Iraq is no longer a regional threat...

I know you never believed this. Your motivation is wasting "browns".

Cool. Just don't pout like a little bitch next time United lights up another skyscraper.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:06 pm**

I'm glad you and I can agree to throw dirt on the grave of the Prussian model.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:35 pm**

mvscal wrote: We also won that war decisively...

Please...my boys were getting their mail delivered to them at the Reichstag when you were still asking the French for directions. Don't even get me started on Italy...

And Japan? 4 more months of total naval blockade and you would have reduced that island to skeletons, A-bomb or no A-bomb.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:49 pm**

True.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:59 pm**

pfffft.

they couldn't process Russian fuel, wouldn't work in the cold and the wheel base was too narrow. glorified tow-sleighs.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:06 pm**

That's not all Marty, c'mon.

British and American 24 hr bombardment of Germany helped too.

What's your problem with Italy ? Are you suggesting the Allies focus on Italy was a deliberate stalling attempt to get more Soviets killed before opening up the Western Front ?

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:37 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:It doesn't seem that the Paks have much control over them...
Well that would depend on which group of Pakis you happen to be talking about.

As evidence of the militants' links to Pakistan mounted, Mumbai police commissioner Hasan Ghafoor said ex-Pakistani army officers trained the group — some for up to 18 months — and denied reports the men had been planning to escape the city.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:41 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:That's not all Marty, c'mon.

British and American 24 hr bombardment of Germany helped too.

Yeah. It helped increase German production in '44-'45 and stiffen the backbone of the Wehrmacht in the West.

Tom In VA wrote: What's your problem with Italy ? Are you suggesting the Allies focus on Italy was a deliberate stalling attempt to get more Soviets killed before opening up the Western Front ?

Please Tom...It burned your asses that the Soviets got to Berlin before you did...as well as snatch up half the German rocket program and scientists.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:45 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote:pfffft.

they couldn't process Russian fuel, wouldn't work in the cold and the wheel base was too narrow. glorified tow-sleighs.

Those were the Shermans, not the Studebaker and GMC trucks he's talking about.

Posted: **Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:48 pm**

mvscal wrote: And without them the Soviets wouldn't have gotten past the Ukraine.

Like it or not, the Warsaw Pact would not have been possible without American trucks, tanks, planes and jeeps.

Easy, champ.
The American armour of Lend-Lease was relegated to Far-East border guard.
Why drive a shit Sherman when T-34's were flying off assembly lines by the time Bagration happened?

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:50 am**

mvs, you obviously haven't payed attention over the years to nish and the rest of the anti american revisionists.

We were late to the party and hardly even mattered. Why old joe and winston had adolph on the ropes when we crashed the party to grab some of the glory.

And all of our equipment was rubbish. I guess the russkies accepted countless pieces of war materiel just to make us feel important.

Nope, we had hardly any effect at all.

Anybody got any figures on US war time production vs the rest of the world, combined?

I'll bet it wasn't even close.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:51 am**

Mister Bushice wrote: Marty isn't condoning murder...

Sure he is.

Rak the Paks? Wtf is that, if not condoning murder?

You don't have to condone the violence of a perfect crime to appreciate the execution.

Perfect crime? Usually the term refers to actually getting away with said crime... you know, like a diamond heist... not dying for some fucked up cause while you murder as many innocents as possible along the way.

How you can even refer to suicidal terrorists as having committed a perfect crime is ludicrous on an unimaginable scale.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:59 am**

mvscal wrote:They were tactically and operationally brilliant, but the were a total logistical clusterfuck.

I'd recommend Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War by John Ellis.

Even better, read the Goebbel's Diaries: FINAL ENTRIES 1945, where Goebbel's himself says the major failing of the Third Reich was not prosecuting the war as "Total War".

Too many dipshit Wehrmacht geezers with their heads in the 19th century and their minds on which snob riding school to send their spoiled children.

In that sense guys like Goebbels were true revolutionary thinkers, unlike loudmouth bullies like Lenin who fought their battles from comfortable tea rooms in New York and Switzerland.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:02 am**

mvscal wrote:
You sure about that? These guys must have taken one hell of a wrong turn to end up in Vienna instead of Vladivostok. Maybe they just stopped for directions.

Gee whiz...a squeaky clean tank with freshly shaven and smartly dressed crew in the middle of a pristine and craterless town square...Boy, do I ever have egg on my face!

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:04 am**

War Wagon wrote: Perfect crime? Usually the term refers to actually getting away with said crime...

Oh, I hadn't realised you captured Osama...wait, let me go turn on the TV...

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:08 am**

Martyred wrote: Those were the Shermans, not the Studebaker and GMC trucks he's talking about.

A little self-criticism for you, comrade.
It was right across the board, the engines of all the American vehicles were too complex for the climate, they were useless for seven months of the year and even then, processing fuel that they could handle was too expensive and to bother with.

mvscal wrote:You do understand that the German economy did not go onto a war time footing until 1944, right? Women were forbidden to work in industry and other such nonsense. They actually scaled back production of artillery ammunition in April 1941 just two months before Barbarossa and that was only one of the monumentally stupid economic and logistical blunders which doomed Nazi Germany. They were tactically and operationally brilliant, but the were a total logistical clusterfuck.

That's just splitting hairs and nit-picking. Hitler did exactly the right thing at the right time, there were political calculations in scaling back production and looking back with hindsight, it's easy to second guess and point fingers. In the end, it might have helped them marginally, but that entire campaign was doomed fairly quickly for larger issues than divisions shooting themselves dry. On a grand scale, it was a non-factor.

Nice pic of the Sherman in sunny Vienna with the mop-up penal battalian. Shame they were such useless peices of crap that wouldn't work when they were really needed.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:22 am**

War Wagon wrote: Rak the Paks? Wtf is that, if not condoning murder?

If you can find a difference between an irregular shoothing into a crowd with a machine gun and an air force bombing campaign whose objective is the destuction of all arable land, or sanctions - I'd like to hear it.

They are identical in objective: you bring about political change by making civilian existence intolerable, and

identical in outcome: non combatants are co-erced and killed. There is no difference.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:23 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:Hitler did exactly the right thing at the right time, there were political calculations in scaling back production and looking back with hindsight, it's easy to second guess and point fingers.

A little self criticism for you, tovarisch.
Hitler was saddled with a defeatist General Staff that had little concept of modern warfare outside of moving colourful division and army group markers across a map at Der Officer's Klub.

OKW > OKH

fuck you, buddy

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:00 am**

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Ellis's argument, backed with statistics, is that the Allied victory in WW II was the inevitable consequence of enormous advantages in manpower and materiel, but that the deployment of this overwhelming force was so maladroit that the war dragged on longer than necessary. In his lucid summaries of the major campaigns (Blitzkreig, Battle of Britain, Eastern Front, Battle of the Atlantic, Bomber Offensive, Mediterranean, Northwest Europe, Pacific) the author is highly critical of the conduct of Allied operations, charging British General Bernard Montgomery, for instance, for overcautious tactics,

sounds like twatface Ellis should read 'decision in Normandy' by Carlo D'este and educate himself on how dire the British manpower situation was in 1944.
What's his thesis? Mongo smash = good for winning battlez?

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:30 am**

Martyred wrote: Hitler was saddled with a defeatist General Staff that had little concept of modern warfare outside of moving colourful division and army group markers across a map at Der Officer's Klub.

Look at our little message board marxist toy go... wind him up, watch him play Risk as he marches his armies across the width and breadth of the pantheon of World History, caring little for the casualties. These are beneath one of such august stature

Alexander the Great has nothing on Generalissimo Martyred.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:53 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote: If you can find a difference between an irregular shoothing into a crowd with a machine gun and an air force bombing campaign whose objective is the destuction of all arable land, or sanctions - I'd like to hear it.

Did you just try to compare the USAF carrying out prescribed missions with suicide bombers?

Hilarious... you don't really call yourself an educated man, do you? I mean in public... you don't really get out in front of say, a classroom and preach that?

Here's a hint. The crew of the Enola Gay came back to tell about it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:41 am**

War Wagon wrote:
Dr_Phibes wrote: If you can find a difference between an irregular shoothing into a crowd with a machine gun and an air force bombing campaign whose objective is the destuction of all arable land, or sanctions - I'd like to hear it.
Did you just try to compare the USAF carrying out prescribed missions with suicide bombers?

~pssst Whitey. They were BOTH carrying out prescribed missions.

Here's a hint. The crew of the Enola Gay came back to tell about it.

Here's one for you. The mumbai terrorists planned not to.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:12 pm**

War Wagon wrote:watch him play Risk

He has to keep his strong hold in Kamchatka you know.

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:37 pm**

Martyred wrote: Der Officer's Klub.

although my high school german classes were a lonnnnng time ago, it seems to me that it should be Das Officers Klub

nicht var?

Posted: **Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:17 pm**

Cuda wrote:
Martyred wrote: Der Officer's Klub.
although my high school german classes were a lonnnnng time ago, it seems to me that it should be Das Officers Klub

nicht var?

Grammar/Spelling smack is strictly forbidden amongst fellow members of the CCCP* as outlined in Article 11, Subsection 3, Addendum 903-D.
Rookie mistake, but I'll let it slide.

*Comrade's Club of Cool Posters

Posted: **Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:11 am**

mvscal wrote: http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2R ... &ct=result

Good read, but you have to admit, this is a laugh:

While a shot that richocetted harmlessly off the frontal armour would not unduly alarm an experienced Panther crew, a green or demoralised crew might lose heart and break off the engagement

I think you might be driving a lemon when a must know tactic is trying to scare a Panther crew to death.
I'd also make a correlation between the employment of Shermans in the drive into Berlin and the fantastic rates at which Soviet armour was destroyed at the end of the campaign.

Interesting to read about the attempted upgrade to a 76mm gun (something that might do damage) but was abandoned because the Soviets were swimming in lend-lease 75mm ammunition.

mvscal wrote:I have read both and would suggest that you re-read Decision in Normandy. Monty was a hamfisted assclown and that had nothing to do with British manpower problems which weren't nearly as dire as you suggest during Normandy.

No, I know what you're talking about. The 'General Return Of The Strength Of The British Army Report' D'este mentions?
That seems irrelevant to me, Montgomery and 21st Army group conducted their operations based on what they had - and what they knew they had available. You've read the book so you've read all the communiques between Montgomery and Alanbrooke, Army Group and Churchill, SHAEF observations etc. They were pulling their hair out and you know how desperate the situation was.
Any information on additional reserves lies strictly with Churchill, there is no evidence that 21st Army group had any information on additional manpower available to them. (mind you, my copy is a first edition and mentions the return strength records as only just come out, additional public records may have been released since

)

Posted: **Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:33 am**

mvscal wrote: The way Mongomery conducted operations in 1944 was no different than the way he conducted operations in 1942 or 1945. It didn't matter if it was El Alamein or his Rhine crossing, the formula was the same. Enormous, carefully choreographed set piece battles with no room for improvisation. Monty wasn't alone either. The British officer class was completely hide bound by outdated tradition, dull and utterly unimaginative. It had nothing to do with man power. It was about their national character.

You're talking out your arse, improvisation exists within the framework of a set piece battle. Mass force in a 'choreographed set piece battle' was brought to bare when in it was in the British interest to do so, when it was in the strategic advantage and not in the benefit of a German army on it's heels. The failure of Market Garden accentuates this point.

This shows a deeper understanding of strategy, tactics and logistics than any American personality. With the possible exception of Patton and Eisenhower, there isn't a single name that stands out.

The British Officer Corps was overloaded with qualified men (O'Conner, Auchinleck, Dempsey, Wavell, Montgomery, etc etc) who could operate in time and space and improvise, in any given situation - rather than rely on an overabundance of equipment manufactured in the safety of a far-way rabbit hole.

T1B

Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks

Re: Mumbai Attacks