Jump to content

Smack

Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Smack's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Hey, just got this game, very good! However, when I encircle large units, they enemy still manages to resupply them, or reinforce them, any idea of why this is?
  2. DId they really think that highly of Canadian soldierS? I think Canada had great and almost suicidal troops, Normandy battles taught me that...
  3. Its a really neat book, even if you dont believe it, you shouldnt dismiss it out of hand. Anyone read "The Rape Of Nanking?", its a neat book, disgusting though. But anyway, the JApanese people look upon the "The Rape Of Nanking" Book much like the people of this board look at "Other losses". They ignore it, because its something they know there country has done wrong and they don't really want to believe it has happened. Keep Open Minded, if there's anything I want to get across to young people it is to keep an open mind!! Never close your mind off to anything, no matter how far fetched it seems, sometimes you find truth in very unexpected places.
  4. He Gives the names of all the archieves and Books cited. In all about 20 Archieves were visited, and even more books consulted. and of Course he interviewed a large number of German ex prisoners who are all thanked. he's also got alot of charts of prisoners death rates, from American Archieves. Which is quite a large amount of deaths. It seems they weren't fed for a long period of time and starved. The Excuse is "food shortages and all Red Cross parcels went to the Displaced Persons". Which is of course stupid, because the British fed there men, and same with the Canadians. American officers who had put in requests for food were denied food for thier prisoners.
  5. You should speak to the German P.O.W's...I know I have and they said Treatment in American camps was awful, and when the British took over it was remarkably better. It is funny how a country that is bombed and blitzed can afford to feed its prisoners while a country that is left alone and not bombed cannot? And I dont see how this can be attributed to the "Holocaust didnt happen?" Mr Hedges. I have been to Auchwitz (spelling?) and I KNOW that the holocaust happened! I think you all realize now that your above posts make no sense to the topic at hand and should be re-writted to state your opinion. This book has givin me reason to believe that an atrocity did occur, lets keep an open mind...and prove me wrong.
  6. Well whatever guys. Seemed like an interesting book, but its funny how the victors automatically put themselves above any wrong doing. Thousands died in overseas American/French camps and you guys dismiss it on a whim? Asking for the topic to be closed makes no sense, thats like saying the holocaust didnt happen. Its a factual book and it has recieved flak from people who dont want to believe that it happened. This isnt the first time ive come across atrocity stories about post WW2 Europe in Camps for Prisoners. In Fact, History Television had a large show about it. How can something like the deaths of almost a million soldiers of starvation not warrant talking about? Lets not put ourselves upon a pedestal and look down and say "I dont like that post because it isnt true" give me proof that what I have writted isnt true! Dont just say "Sounds like Crap"...Do reserch boys and girls. Prove me wrong, but lets not ignore what is being said...
  7. I read a book and still have it and its called "Other Losses" By James Bacque. This Book has caused international scandal in 1989 because it revealed that The Americans and French P.O.W camps allowed almost a million prisoners to die of starvation. The American and French governments could not explain how so many died, as it is acknowladged by them as fact. The only reason why this author found out the deaths is because of the newly opened KGB archieves. The governemnts of the world now see these deaths as truthful. The suppression of the truth by the French and American governments is well documented. German prisoners often screamed to British Vehicles to help them. In the End, and this is 100 percent fact and widely admitted in all Military and historical circles, the British kept much better care, and indeed treated Germans better than in US/French camps. The treatment was so bad that Britain stepped in and took over many American camps and were horrified at the treatment of the prisoners in American camps. Many died that day of starvation. In the end, British camps were better and treatment alot more fair then in the American camps where prisoners died at a rate of over a thousand a day *in all French and American camps combined* P.S the book got good reviews from the Time Magazine and the New York Times said it was "A must read for any WW2 fanatic"
  8. Why wasnt it used like the German 88mm? In Talonsofts west front it decimated German tanks and infantry... More importantly, what is the reason why the British Didnt use it as an AT weapon?
  9. No The British were not equipped poorly armed at all. To say that goes against all historical fact! If the British were poorly armed then so were the Americans! The lee Enfield bieng a good rifle, better than the German 98k and the Bren gun was a good also. All British or Canadian books I have read say the Enfield was a great weapon, and that The Garand was not something that the Troops wanted. In fact, they liked the TOmmy Gun, but that was it. This Fact has shown up in Games, West Front has British and American infantry platoons equal. The write up on the British infantry platoon says that The Enfield was a extremely good weapon and could be fired at a very High R.O.F. Operational art of war shows no difference between the Americans and British. I think this is a product of where someone lives. In America everyone thinks that the Garand was great, and it was, but 8 rounds was a severe limitation, if it had 30 I could see your point, but 8!! The reason why we have semi auto's today is because of the 30 round magazine, now you CAN blaze away at a target, but with 8 rounds, you'll get yourself killed. It is sad the American government at the time did not fix the garand to stop the ping noise and the 8 round limitation. Alot of good people were probably killed because of this oversight...The Enfield was not a limitation as some of you seem to say, as once again I say the Americans fared no better anywhere than the British did! So how was their weapons a "disadvantage"...oudviously they werent...
  10. Its a love story...it was a book first. Which I read. So It isnt a war movie, it is a romance in the setting of a war. Read the book first, it is good.
  11. ICM1947 you werent bieng rude. I just dont think that it made a huge difference to the performance of the different armies. I think both of them were equal in terms of successes and defeats. So oudvioulsy there was n real difference between the two rifles in the grand scheme of things. I didnt see any difference in other games like West Front, D-Day or such other such games. The Americans and British armies differed little in such games..Operational art of war also made no real difference between American and Brit infantry
  12. *The Americans broke out because the majority of the Panzer Divisions were on the British/Canadian front, had the Panzer Divisions been on the American front, the Americans woulndt have broken out PAK 40* . Well in the end the difference isnt large. The Fact that the AMericans fared no better than the British proves this fact. If the Garand was superiour, it wasnt by much. All things were equal except for rate of fire. In the end, to say again, the difference wasnt large and no army fared any better than the other...so I think they end up equal..
  13. Then how did the Americans fare no better at Hedgerow fighting or street fighting the the British!!?! Thats because the Germans could suppress better than the British or Americans, and the diffrerence beetwen rifles/section weapons is virtually none. The Americans had no advantage because of thier rifles, this is proven because the fact that the British and Americans facing the same amount of troops in similar conditions fared no better then the British. You all seem to tell me that the Garand was better than the British Rifle at Suppression, yet there is no evidence of that bieng the case. The Americans didnt seemed to fare any better than the British. So I really, where was this advantage...I just dont see it!?
×
×
  • Create New...