The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic



I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.


Of course they dont.

They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
average soldier fighting there at the time.

Keith


Those of us who were there know nothing. Those who weren't there know it
all.
Does that include your dad?

His dad *was* there, and you were NOT. Don't act as if the intel guys were
giving you detailed premission briefs that included the enemy groundforce
ORBAT and number of panzer divisions committed to the fight--they were not,
you know it, and we know it. Your "firsthand" account is based upon what
little you saw while streaking over the battlefield at 10K plus
altitude--his father was seeing it up-close-and-personal (and which agrees
with the historical accounts in those books you repeatedly ridicule). But
please, keep on flapping your trap--you are just reinforcing your
(increasingly tarnished) reputation with every idiotic utterance you make.

Brooks




Arthur Kramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic



I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.


Of course they dont.

They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
average soldier fighting there at the time.

Keith


Those of us who were there know nothing.

You know about what you did and saw as well
as anything you read about.

Those who weren't there know it all.

I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.

Does that include your dad?

He was aware of the limits of his knowledge

As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
he had of strategy is what his orders were.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/3/2004 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic



I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.


Of course they dont.

They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
average soldier fighting there at the time.

Keith


Those of us who were there know nothing.

You know about what you did and saw as well
as anything you read about.

Those who weren't there know it all.

I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.

Does that include your dad?

He was aware of the limits of his knowledge

As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
he had of strategy is what his orders were.

Keith



Nothing special there. That was all of us.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: Presidente Alcazar
Date: 9/2/2004 11:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 02 Sep 2004 20:27:25 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army.

And more than one in Normandy, as Keith already stated, but somehow
troops in the British sector of the beachhead ended up having to fight
the only panzer division within reach of the beaches on D-Day despite
your efforts. Try reading his post before responding next time.

Didn't you
read about them?

You're not disputing with Keith, you're disputing the evidence of his
father, who actually fought on the ground in Normandy against the
divisions in question. When it comes down to fighting the panzers on
the ground in Normandy, Keith's old man was there, and you're the
wannabe reading about it. I really shouldn't respond to your
trolling, but this specific example exposes everything that I despise
about the moral hypocrisy you display online.

And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
faced a lot more than he did. Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back
to
reading your books.

Do you realise how bad this kind of aggressively infantile chauvanism
makes you look?

Gavin Bailey


I want to thank you for reading every message I post and replying promptly
indicating you have hung on every word I have written. It makes me feel my
contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/3/2004 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic



I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.


Of course they dont.

They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
average soldier fighting there at the time.

Keith


Those of us who were there know nothing.

You know about what you did and saw as well
as anything you read about.

Those who weren't there know it all.

I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.

Does that include your dad?

He was aware of the limits of his knowledge

As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
he had of strategy is what his orders were.

Keith



Nothing special there. That was all of us.

Then why do you continue to act as if you were a first-hand participant in
the ground war and know more than the various published histories of that
action?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr wrote:

It makes me feel my
contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.

They're neither. People respond to you to set straight anyone who may think
you're an authority on anything beyond your single B-26 between 1943 and 1945.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

On 03 Sep 2004 17:32:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I want to thank you for reading every message I post

I don't. I do however read Keith's posts and their followups on the
basis that he can contribute to an interesting and relevant
discussion, and also slap trolls around for general entertainment.

and replying promptly

I don't, as you will have noticed since you evaded responding to my
question about your personal, first-hand experience of Geoffrey
Chaucer and simultaneously demonstrated your personal intellectual
cowardice. It's strange but also rather pathetic that you had the
guts to face the risks of air combat in WW2 but lack the moral courage
to post honestly to usenet and confront your own contradictions.

indicating you have hung on every word I have written.

And again, I don't. You seem to be managing a higher level of
followups to my posts than I ever managed with yours. Still, feel
free to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable. That would
certainly be in character.

It makes me feel my
contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.

And I'm sure the lurkers support you to the last bullet. It's a shame
your contributions have to rely so extensively on childish,
competitive bluster and the denigration of people who served in WW2.
If you could deal with that, and I assume you have the capacity to do
so, I'm sure your posts would be a lot more appreciated. As it is, I
suppose you provide a salutary example to later generations that a man
can perform good service in WW2 and yet still fail to be a big enough
man to acknowledge the contributions of others more than half a
century later.

You diminish yourself by your posting behaviour.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: Presidente Alcazar
Date: 9/4/2004 2:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 03 Sep 2004 17:32:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I want to thank you for reading every message I post

I don't. I do however read Keith's posts and their followups on the
basis that he can contribute to an interesting and relevant
discussion, and also slap trolls around for general entertainment.

and replying promptly

I don't, as you will have noticed since you evaded responding to my
question about your personal, first-hand experience of Geoffrey
Chaucer and simultaneously demonstrated your personal intellectual
cowardice. It's strange but also rather pathetic that you had the
guts to face the risks of air combat in WW2 but lack the moral courage
to post honestly to usenet and confront your own contradictions.

indicating you have hung on every word I have written.

And again, I don't. You seem to be managing a higher level of
followups to my posts than I ever managed with yours. Still, feel
free to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable. That would
certainly be in character.

It makes me feel my
contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.

And I'm sure the lurkers support you to the last bullet. It's a shame
your contributions have to rely so extensively on childish,
competitive bluster and the denigration of people who served in WW2.
If you could deal with that, and I assume you have the capacity to do
so, I'm sure your posts would be a lot more appreciated. As it is, I
suppose you provide a salutary example to later generations that a man
can perform good service in WW2 and yet still fail to be a big enough
man to acknowledge the contributions of others more than half a
century later.

You diminish yourself by your posting behaviour.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En


Then don't read my posts. No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
says it all


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 04 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Then don't read my posts.

Indeed, that's the best response to a troll.

No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
says it all

I read this one on the off-chance there might be an answer to the
question I posed a year ago and reiterated just now: what your
personal experience of Geoffrey Chaucer was. I admit the odds were
slight that you would manage a response to that and the other
contradictions, but I thought I ought to give you the chance. The
safe money was always on you running away from them as per usual,
however.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Subject: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
From: Presidente Alcazar
Date: 9/4/2004 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 04 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Then don't read my posts.

Indeed, that's the best response to a troll.

No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
says it all

I read this one on the off-chance there might be an answer to the
question I posed a year ago and reiterated just now: what your
personal experience of Geoffrey Chaucer was. I admit the odds were
slight that you would manage a response to that and the other
contradictions, but I thought I ought to give you the chance. The
safe money was always on you running away from them as per usual,
however.

Gavin Bailey


I see you are still reading my posts. Have you no self control?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer