postfux123

Having spent a monday in the office I found this one: http://www.bote-aus-der-buckligen-welt.at/flash/bote149/files/assets/pages/page0024.swf weapon: russian tank - not very helpfull again

One of my teachers told a story of tanks firing at our school (or rather the SS firing from it). That most likely would have been Shermans against a massive stone wall not causing structural relevant damage but making quite a mess. My grandfather told of a direct hit (no idea by what weapon) against a wooden structure pretty much bringing it down. Thats very vague, but the best I have to offer.

I have no deeper knowledge, but Zug in german is the general term for platoon. If the SS with their habit of naming everything "assault"something used it I would guess veryone else did too.

Bolds by me. Please reread critically and reconsider your attitude. You are of course also free to debate. They way you are handling this forum could qualify you for a director at RT. I am out of this and this time for good, but me beeing me I cant restrain myself to make some last points: 1. I can beat you and your brother in a fistfight with my right hand tied to my back. I just choose not to because I had these kind of fights every day the last 10 months. 2. If Russia is the only one responsible for the dead and displaced in Eastern Ukraine, who is responsible for the dead protesters and policeman at Euromaidan? 3. If the prerevolutionary Ukrainian government would have sent the army to Kiev and Lemberg and I dont know which other Western Ukrainian city who would have been your bad guy? 4.Nobody did "force" England or France to declare war on Germany or the US to support Stalin. Without these direct actions there would not have been a world war. It is an existing but "highly debatable" position if these facts make These powers responsible for WWII. 5. Calling the strategic bombing during WWII a warcrime means stepping on difficult ground young padawan. I dont think you consider the implications for thousands of allied air crews with full knowledge of their payload and where this was delivered. I am sure you know Dresden is a symbol not a single event. Btw, there where no rules for air warfare back then. Even if you are going for using the rules for ground warfare analogous (and you can make a good point toward that) there is also the position talking about a breakdown of the rules of wars, which also is a good one. Cities as military targets? There are people without an politcal agenda that call Hamburg a decisive point in the war. War (the violent destruction of the enemy) is amoral by ist nature and isnt necessarily restricted to the destruction of the armed forces. I dont want to open this can. Hiroshima anyone? Mutual restraint by agreed rules of engagment is only thinkable if both parties are ready to accept defeat or fear breaking the rules more than loosing. Therefore its the exception not the rule. If you are trying to break down strategic developments to the responsibility of single persons and mix some morals into it you will loose the focus for the big picture. Punitive action as war crime? What about Sherman or Grant as war criminals? The later - one of the greatest man your country can be proud of - for supporting Sherman and letting him of the leash. Was the Wilderness Campaign with its high casualities morally better than the March to the Sea? 6. I know I am terribly OT on 4 and 5 but that pretty well describes why I got engaged in this "discussion". I am sure most people behind the gunsigghts on both sides bringing death and destruction to Eastern Ukraine are decent men. The probability might drop with irregular forces, no matter which side. Warfare is ugly and These guys wont change that. People that are having an agenda towards making a good guy/ bad guy situation out of a higly complicated ongoing conflict are fueling escalation and therefor get blood on their hands without leaving their living rooms. Thats why I dont think you are a decent guy and nothing you said on this forum did change my opinion. In the beginning I admit I was expecting some sort of clarifaction (and some other members more diplomatic than me, too) but you did everything to reinforce your point.

Without the direct actions of France and England and Lend and Lease a lot of death and destruction most likely could have been avoided according your undisputable logic applied to Eastern Ukraine. And it was the Third Reich ultimatly responsible for the firebombing of Dresden. If you send your army away to conquer the world the enemy will come and burn down your citys. Always was like that, always will be. Even precision ammunition wont change this. If you reduce these actions to Bomber Harris or some other individuals you are loosing the big picture again. Hitler was warned about the strategic capabilities (likely monthly production of heavy bombers). 3/4 of the Luftwaffe were deployed against the SU. The enemy will use what he has one point or another. Thats what escalation is about. I wont discuss your other points because I promised not to challenge your worldview and because talking to a wall seems to be more productive. Name me a wingnut and call it a day. Edit: Btw, the article I linked is mainly about the ineffectiveness and shortcomings of the US government. If you would have spent 5 minutes of your precious time you would be in a position to know this. At least you realised it wasnt a Russian source. I am aware now it takes the threat of deadly force to make you consider reading a deviating opinion or beeing exposed to facts not fitting in your world view. Sorry for breaking my promise, but this one was too hard to keep.

Since I initially responded to one of your posts I am surprised I am OT. As long as the topic is the situation in Eastern Ukraine and not bashing Russia. I admit I am OT on this one.

These are facts: 1. Ukraine wanted to sign asociation agreement with EU. Russia grumbled and did nothing. EU didnt want to sign. In Fall 2013 Merkel said Ukraine is not ready. 2. Ukraine needed money, asked EU. Negative. 3. Ukraine asked Russia. Got credit. Moscow demanded to rethink alignment. 4. Ukraine did. 5. Protesters supported by Western powers moved to the street, occupied public buildings, armed themselves and fought police with deaths on both sides. 6. Yanukowitch and western officials signed an agreement for early elections. 7. Next day violent overthrow of Yanukowitch. Nato warns Ukraine to use military force. Unconstitutional government taking power in breach of the agreement is accepted by western powers immediatly. 8. Breakaway/ Annextion of Krim 9. Protesters supported by Russia moved to the street in the East, occupied public buildings, armed themselves. Regional Police didnt intervene. 10. An unconstitutional and not democratically legitamted government in Kiev sends loyal parts of its military to quell the rebellion. This was all planned by the Kremlin? While Putin was busy hosting the Olympics? You are serious about this? If with "green men" you are refering to Russian soldiers I think they were already there, several thousands of them. Its called "military base".

You are not serious about this?

This is great reading. Good idea to make an AAR and well executed. I get very immersed in the action without loosing the overall picture.

Hi Bil, loved all your AAR. First one for me to follow "live". Thanks for putting in all that effort.

Yeah, that was me. Now I am stuck with this slow paced, boring and graphically outdated game I didnt want and cant even update without key. I demand a vehicle pack with heli riding flamethrower infantry and the ability to pick up SMGs!!! - and the key!!!

Didnt get you wrong. I think its great we have a game were we can discuss the way the MG is carried by the pixel soldiers.

This game is shockingly inaccurate .

You do not take into account it was an preemptive strike. I have a preference for # 3

I think submarines were one of the smarter moves of Germany regarding effort and effect. They fell behind technological and had a huge problem with sigint but stragetic it was way smarter than building very modern and expensive battleships for instance. Submarines had the potential to partially balance allied production. One might wonder on the other hand why later in the war Germany build an assortment of badass tanks and another assortment of more economic fighting vehicles while the powerhorse US concentrated on one reliable (but not very badass) tank design with good success and the SU pumped out "junk" with a good gun and sufficient armor. I dont think the Sherman was cannon fodder but a very succesfull tank design (perhaps more so than a Königstiger). What I wanted to say is that good engineering alone does not mean you are smart or rather pull my hat to YankeeDog for having done this already in style.