German losses vs. West and East

[roqf77]

Yes, that reminds me of fake dossiers and cooked up evidence.

Stern assertions of proof and evidence whilst waving around cooked up or watered down pamphlets.

if you are refering to the documents released over the iraq war the butler report proved that the allegations made over the fakeness of the 45 minute claim made by the bbc was not only a mis quote but andrew gilligan the reporter in question was drunk when he made the statement. Which he addmitted. that and the 45 minute claim in question was actualy taken directly from un weapons inspectors report the governmet simply removed the term battlefield from the sentence.

[Bigduke6]

BD,

"Tol'ko durak govorit o Rossii, ne znaya russkii yazyk."

And if that's too complicated for you, try this one:

"Meine Generaele verstehen nichts, von der wirschaftlichen Seite dieses Krieges!"

Extra points if you can figure out who is the famous person that said it, and double extra points if you can see the parallels between that person's thinking, and your arguements.

Me, I'm like Andreas, I just want to know which Red Army front it was Khruschev commanded. What number? You said there were several. Name one.

And more importantly, do you think Khruschev got to wear those field marshal pants with the double red stripe, it would have looked pretty silly on his dumpy figure, don't you think?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by blue division:

Quote :

''Deeply concerned' and 'cared' are really very similar. Granted, there are minor semantic difference, but you are aware that English is Andreas' second language?'

Back to school we go....

Defintiions of :

Concern

n 1: something that interests you because it is important or affects you; "the safety of the ship is the captain's concern"

A matter that relates to or affects one.

To engage the attention of; involve: We concerned ourselves with accomplishing the task at hand.

Care

1 : watchful or protective attention, caution, concern, prudence, or regard usually towards an action or situation;

2 a : personal supervision or responsibility : CHARGE b : MAINTENANCE

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have with the use of the English language.

Please next time at least consult a dictionary before posting a statement such as this on this forum.

While you've got the dictionary handy, please look up 'similar', 'minor' and 'semantics'

Furthermore, I would refer you to a second source, "The Pocket Oxford Dictionary", 8th edition

Caring 1 (usu. foll. by about, for, whether) feel concern or interest

Also check www.dictionary.com

You did mention something about checking multiple sources and making critical appreciation. So I did.

In fact, your own source relates 'care' and 'concern'. Look at definition 1 for 'care'

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Is this by any chance your source?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blue division:

Nikita Krushchev (in his memoirs):

"How could we have advanced from Stalingrad and Kursk on to Berlin without American aid and foodstuffs? We had lost our grain-producing areas".

Case closed, gentlemen.

=======================

=======================

It should be noted that the US fed Russia during the war, as well as providing it with the transport to move the food around.

</font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by roqf77:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Ever seen a movie about battles lost by the Western Allies?

yes a bridge to far actualy!

in the book of the same name by cornelius ryan, puts the strength of the german armour at the start of market garden at 51 armoured cars and

Gentleman, whenever you see some numbers in a big font: read the small print. The big numbers are impressive. The real facts and numbers are hidden in the small print explaining them.

if the forces you describe were all that was there 30 corps could of passed through themselves even with out the bridges.

the german armour moved up after the start of the operation as noted on page 365 i think of a bridge to far he also estimates german casulties as between 7,500 - 10,000 men so where were they joachim i guess cornelius ryan was wrong. with all this info you should rioght a book montgomery also mentioned 2nd ss panzer in his war diary i guess he was wrong to?

try and read books before you comment. </font>

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Joachim:

There were five bridges in Market Garden. And most of the tanks fought at the 4th bridge at Nijmegen, just 10 miles away from Arnhem, leaving little for the fifth bridge in Arnhem.

Well, a small number of tanks - including Tigers - and self-propelled guns, towed 75mm guns, halftracks, and a substantial amount of infantry, which surrounded a battalion of infantry with light AT weapons and a finite amount of ammo with no immediate means of resupply.

[roqf77]

plus thae paras at knoicked out a number of tanks including i think 5 tigers according to cornelius ryan. remember he spoke to both eisenhower and montgomery about the operation as well as browning well everybody involved, including some germans. if he says there were more than a ahnd full of tanks there then there were.

quote...

10th SS in August: "22 August, 1944: All resistance in the Falaise Pocket ceases; Remnants of the division sent to Holland for rest and refit. Army Group B reports that the division has no tanks left and only four battalions of infantry." Feldgrau link

Not much time to refit till 17 September

quote........

true but in the book it mentions something about a dutch resistence report about a colum of tanks moving through arnheim.

With numerous accounts of tank battles and the like. all im saying is bias can swing both ways

If the defence was just old men and boys it seems you are suggesting then the operation would of been a resounding succses

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:

There were five bridges in Market Garden. And most of the tanks fought at the 4th bridge at Nijmegen, just 10 miles away from Arnhem, leaving little for the fifth bridge in Arnhem.

Well, a small number of tanks - including Tigers - and self-propelled guns, towed 75mm guns, halftracks, and a substantial amount of infantry, which surrounded a battalion of infantry with light AT weapons and a finite amount of ammo with no immediate means of resupply. </font>

[Joachim]

Yes, bias can swing two ways

Elements of the 10th moved thru Arnhem towards Nijmegen. Elements were ferried across the river nearby while the bridge was held by the paras. Graebner's 9th Recce moved thru Arnhem. Yes - the latter ain't tanks. Translation errors will happen between Dutch and English. Definition errors happen. An armored column might get a column of tanks - which is not the same. Do ACs count as tanks or armor? What happens with translations of those words?

I know the story about the 5 Tigers that got ambushed. But it was the 43rd Wessex division near Elst, not the 1st paras.

And I don't state the defence was just old men and boys. Most of it was signallers, rear echelon, etc. Units fighting as infantry that were not trained as infantry. Ie troops that are 2nd or 3rd rate as infantry. Much less combat power than Panzergrenadiers. But still there were Panzergrenadiers available. Sometimes with captured weapons (seems several small troops had made their way thru France and were rejoining their division at Arnhem). Sometimes fully equipped. But the amount of available fully trained infantry was low.

Yes, the German defence was a success. Part of the success was made possible by the British plan that did not expect resistance at all. Then the paras encountered men from an SS Pz Division. They encountered fierce counterattacks from men in uniforms of an SS div - how should they know it weren't trained infantrymen and how weak the division really was? I guess some officers of the paras got cautious - which is a bad thing cause a para drop needs to keep its momentum to be successful. If they stop or allow small hodgepodge skirmishing units to delay them, the Germans gain time to defeat them in detail with the little combat troops and tanks they have available.

Of course stopping XXX Corps helped even more to gain enough time.

Gruß

Joachim

[roqf77]

true but all im saying is the second rate troops werent all they had faced. in the end they were battered for a reason.

You do make some good points though i understand and to a point i agree.

If you dont mind answering what do you think would of happenend if monty was given the go ahead for operation comet when he first asked for it.

Dont mean to argue bitterly with you so much but my grandad was in the duke of cornwalls light infantry.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Joachim:

That would be one btn... what stopped the others?

You have a continual piling on of disparate units, SS panzer grenadiers, training - including NCO candidates - and depot units, Dutch SS, assault pioneers, artillery units, nebelwerfers, Renault tanks, a large quantity of anti-aircraft halftracks, and assault guns. A Tiger company from 506th Panzer Battalion arrived in Arnhem on the 24th. The Luftwaffe also committed 300 fighters.

[roqf77]

plus actualy i re read the section there were a number of tanks including 2 tigers destroyed in arnhem

[roqf77]

by piats believe it or not

[blue division]

doubt if they were destroyed - unless they were imbolized and blown up by their crews.

I expect the crews had their ear drums blown out by the pressure of the detonation or some such incapacitating injury. I doubt there were many people who were qualified to handle such a complex and valuable piece of equipment, so that was probably that.

[Bigduke6]

What I want to know is, was Nikita Khruschev in charge of the two Tiger tanks knocked out by PIATs at Arnehm? I think he was. Otherwise a great tank like a Tiger couldn't have been knocked out by PIATs.

[blue division]

Yawn.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by blue division:

Yawn.

Got a source on that, partner?

[flamingknives]

It's really been bugging me. I know this debating style, but can't for the life of me remember who it is.

[blue division]

Yawn. (Stretch...)

[blue division]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

What I want to know is, was Nikita Khruschev in charge of the two Tiger tanks knocked out by PIATs at Arnehm? I think he was. Otherwise a great tank like a Tiger couldn't have been knocked out by PIATs.

I don't think Khruschev could have fitted through the hatch of a tank.

[blue division]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

What I want to know is, was Nikita Khruschev in charge of the two Tiger tanks knocked out by PIATs at Arnehm? I think he was. Otherwise a great tank like a Tiger couldn't have been knocked out by PIATs.

I don't think political commissars were assigned to tank crews, Big Duke.

Perhaps you have a reference or quotation that proves otherwise.

[roqf77]

My source?

Cornelius ryans a bridge to far.

It doesnt state how it happenend whether or not the tiger brewed up simply it was abandoned.

But i have read a few accounts piats knocking out tigers including a few in the bocage.

It was not likely however a singular hit it was most likely tracked and then the gun was hit meaning the crew probably abandoned because there was not much reason to stay.

Not massivly familar with infantry anti tank tactics but i would assume that they would go for mobility kills then possibly to disable.

Im not sure about the piats ability to blow up tigers. i was simply stating the weapon at least convinced two crews enough to abandon there tanks.

[blue division]

Originally posted by roqf77:

My source?

Cornelius ryans a bridge to far.

It doesnt state how it happenend whether or not the tiger brewed up simply it was abandoned.

But i have read a few accounts piats knocking out tigers including a few in the bocage.

It was not likely however a singular hit it was most likely tracked and then the gun was hit meaning the crew probably abandoned because there was not much reason to stay.

Not massivly familar with infantry anti tank tactics but i would assume that they would go for mobility kills then possibly to disable.

Im not sure about the piats ability to blow up tigers. i was simply stating the weapon at least convinced two crews enough to abandon there tanks.

I know the Germans always went for the turret with hand-held AT weapons. More chance of injuring the crew.

[blue division]

HEAT weapons tend to kill tanks by creating a critical amount of pressure within the tank when they penetrate. Very unpleasant for anyone inside.

They often leave very little damage to the tank itself - just a small hole in the armour.

[Bigduke6]

BD,

Khruschev was a real short guy, perfect Red Army tanker material. And during the war years he was relatively skinny. So I am sure he could have fitted into the turret of a super-ueber PKWVI, although given his preference for garlic I am not sure I would want to have be in there with him. :eek:

But of course this is all theoretical, as we know Khruschev was in command of Red Army fronts during the war. (Although the numbers of those fronts appear to be secret.)

Flamingknives,

IMHO "ad absurdium" is pretty close, although frankly I think that insults absurd arguements a bit.