Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

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

"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.

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)

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...

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."

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

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

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

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

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"