![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 1:18*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote: Germany's use of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every other country on the planet at that time. Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about the equipment and tactics of the era.) Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive- bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat. Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the FW-190. Phil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Phil J" wrote in message ... Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive- bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat. Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the FW-190. The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the scene. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote: Germany's use of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every other country on the planet at that time. Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about the equipment and tactics of the era.) Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz Not exactly. The T-34 was produced en masse, had a weak main gun, and had very little room inside for the crew. German tanks were better made and better gunned. But -- all Wermacht maintenance was depot level -- throw a rod? Send the whole tank back to the fatherland by rail. The US forward deployed maintenance philosophy helped defeat the far superior German armor. They would blast four of our tanks -- the next day three would reappear. The Soviet maintenance and refit was not as efficient, but the sheer numbers of T-34s helped swing the tide. The main innovation that German armored units employed that helped facilitate blitzkrieg was small unit communications (radios). The French had better (on paper) tanks then the PKZW Mk IV, but the French employed their tanks as infantry support while the Germans used penetrate and exploit tactics. The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams. Now *that's* a tank. Dan (retired US Army Armor Officer) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dan wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, Jim Logajan wrote: Phil J wrote: Germany's use of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every other country on the planet at that time. Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about the equipment and tactics of the era.) Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz Not exactly. The T-34 was produced en masse, had a weak main gun, and had very little room inside for the crew. German tanks were better made and better gunned. But -- all Wermacht maintenance was depot level -- throw a rod? Send the whole tank back to the fatherland by rail. The US forward deployed maintenance philosophy helped defeat the far superior German armor. They would blast four of our tanks -- the next day three would reappear. The Soviet maintenance and refit was not as efficient, but the sheer numbers of T-34s helped swing the tide. The main innovation that German armored units employed that helped facilitate blitzkrieg was small unit communications (radios). The French had better (on paper) tanks then the PKZW Mk IV, but the French employed their tanks as infantry support while the Germans used penetrate and exploit tactics. The German Tiger tank was not exceeded in potential by Allied armor until the deployment of the M-1 Abrams. Now *that's* a tank. Too bad there will be no more tank battles... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phil J wrote:
Churchill was so concerned about it that he ordered the English army to prepare to use poison gas to defend England's beaches in the event of a German invasion. The old ******* was fond of poison gas in general. Ask the Kurds and Pashtuns, for instance. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 3, 6:18*pm, Rich Ahrens wrote:
Phil J wrote: Churchill was so concerned about it that he ordered the English army to prepare to use poison gas to defend England's beaches in the event of a German invasion. The old ******* was fond of poison gas in general. Ask the Kurds and Pashtuns, for instance. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Yeah, Churchill didn't really see a moral difference between using high explosives and using poison gas. In World War II, the U.S. got involved as well. In 1943 a U.S.Liberty ship called the John Harvey carried a shipment of liquid mustard gas to the port of Bari, Italy. It was to be held in reserve in case the Germans decided to use poison gas. Because the shipment was top secret, the ship had to wait with all the others to unload. They waited in the harbor for five days. At the time, the Allied authorities were convinced that the Luftwaffe wasn't a threat in that area, so they kept the harbor fully lighted at night so they could continue unloading ships. A formation of 105 Ju-88s snuck in under radar and attacked the port, and it was the worst Allied loss of shipping in a bombing raid since Pearl Harbor. The John Harvey exploded and released the liquid mustard gas which mixed with oil on the water. Over 600 were treated for exposure, and 69 died. The whole thing was hushed up by the English and American governments because they were afraid the Germans would start using poison gas if they knew the Allies were working with it. AFAIK poison gas was never actually used by either side in World War II, thank God. Phil |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 3, 7:59 pm, Phil J wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:18 pm, Rich Ahrens wrote: Phil J wrote: Churchill was so concerned about it that he ordered the English army to prepare to use poison gas to defend England's beaches in the event of a German invasion. The old ******* was fond of poison gas in general. Ask the Kurds and Pashtuns, for instance. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Yeah, Churchill didn't really see a moral difference between using high explosives and using poison gas. In World War II, the U.S. got involved as well. In 1943 a U.S.Liberty ship called the John Harvey carried a shipment of liquid mustard gas to the port of Bari, Italy. It was to be held in reserve in case the Germans decided to use poison gas. Because the shipment was top secret, the ship had to wait with all the others to unload. They waited in the harbor for five days. At the time, the Allied authorities were convinced that the Luftwaffe wasn't a threat in that area, so they kept the harbor fully lighted at night so they could continue unloading ships. A formation of 105 Ju-88s snuck in under radar and attacked the port, and it was the worst Allied loss of shipping in a bombing raid since Pearl Harbor. The John Harvey exploded and released the liquid mustard gas which mixed with oil on the water. Over 600 were treated for exposure, and 69 died. The whole thing was hushed up by the English and American governments because they were afraid the Germans would start using poison gas if they knew the Allies were working with it. AFAIK poison gas was never actually used by either side in World War II, thank God. Phil "Poison gas" was used extensively during the Great War. One of the post-war conclusions was that it was more trouble than it was worth and had only limited tactical value. The environmental conditions had to be just so, and often the burden placed on friendly troops reduced their own combat effectiveness. The reason the Axis was so reluctant to employ such weapons was more practical than moral -- contrary prevailing winds, and a tactical emphasis on the offensive made gas unattractive as a battlefield weapon. The only great unknown is why the Germans didn't use it in the last throes of the Reich. There are very few weapons which use cannot be justified in one extremity or the other. Despite all the bad press, MAD worked, and kept the nuclear option the untapped resource. Dan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Was gas not used in the concentration camps?
On Mar 3, 7:59*pm, Phil J wrote: On Mar 3, 6:18*pm, Rich Ahrens wrote: Phil J wrote: Churchill was so concerned about it that he ordered the English army to prepare to use poison gas to defend England's beaches in the event of a German invasion. The old ******* was fond of poison gas in general. Ask the Kurds and Pashtuns, for instance. "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Yeah, Churchill didn't really see a moral difference between using high explosives and using poison gas. In World War II, the U.S. got involved as well. *In 1943 a U.S.Liberty ship called the John Harvey carried a shipment of liquid mustard gas to the port of Bari, Italy. *It was to be held in reserve in case the Germans decided to use poison gas. *Because the shipment was top secret, the ship had to wait with all the others to unload. *They waited in the harbor for five days. *At the time, the Allied authorities were convinced that the Luftwaffe wasn't a threat in that area, so they kept the harbor fully lighted at night so they could continue unloading ships. *A formation of 105 Ju-88s snuck in under radar and attacked the port, and it was the worst Allied loss of shipping in a bombing raid since Pearl Harbor. *The John Harvey exploded and released the liquid mustard gas which mixed with oil on the water. *Over 600 were treated for exposure, and 69 died. *The whole thing was hushed up by the English and American governments because they were afraid the Germans would start using poison gas if they knew the Allies were working with it. AFAIK poison gas was never actually used by either side in World War II, thank God. Phil |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Meanwhile the Bush Administration raised its threat level from
Bomb-Into-Democracy to Nukem-and-let-God-sortem-out...and that's just the Democrat Party. Furriners are ignored as useless, unless they wear a turban, in which case the threat level is borrowed from the English and French: 100-year-war. -- Generosity is not giving me that which I need more than you do, but it is giving me that which you need more than I do. ~ Kahlil Gibran |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Meanwhile the Bush Administration raised its threat level from
Bomb-Into-Democracy to Nukem-and-let-God-sortem-out...and that's just the Democrat Party. Furriners are ignored as useless, unless they wear a turban, in which case the threat level is borrowed from the English and French: 100-year-war. It must be awful for you to watch Iraq succeeding, no? Sorta like a slow-motion train...construction project... :-) Seriously, if something bad doesn't happen in Iraq (or somewhere), and soon, Hillary doesn't stand a chance against Obama. With her perceived superiority in foreign policy issues as the main defining difference between them, (well, other than age, gender, experience, attitude, etc. -- but those don't seem to matter), the lack of any foreign crises is truly hurting her campaign. I'll say this about the Democratic campaigns -- it's been a lot more fun to watch than the Republicans. Heck, even French politics have been more fun than watching Huckabee and whatsisname trying to beat McCain. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off-topic, but in need of help | Alan Erskine | Aviation Photos | 20 | January 5th 07 06:21 AM |
Off-topic, but in need of help | dennis | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 4th 07 10:40 PM |
Almost on topic... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 22 | January 30th 06 06:55 PM |
French but on topic... | ArVa | Military Aviation | 2 | April 16th 04 01:40 AM |
off topic | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 0 | January 2nd 04 01:29 PM |