patton vs.rommel

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by pino:

Rambo, your the biggest idiot i've ever known....

I think you dont even know what a Nazi is....

Pino,

He isn't an idiot and I'm sure he does know what nazis are. Also, I'm sure he knows a lot more about history than he lets on in his posts.

What he really is, is a ballbuster. He's been getting under my skin for two and a half years now and started out calling me Claus Boobie and a German Lover, whatever that's supposed to be. In as much as one pair of grandparents were in fact German, I guess I am.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention you shouldn't get worked up over his posts. I mean, the way I did the other night.

[roqf77]

okay. your wrong on a number of points. in 1939 german military spending became 50% of its gdp. in 1938 it was 10%. in 1940 the number of german aircraft rose faster than did the raf. so actualy german air force would of been, weaker im comparison. as far as the ground forces go, a report was delivered, to chamberlain about the weak state of the british military. It was ignored and only increased spending to "plug the gaps". i dont know if you are familiar with the interwar period, but the economic crisis was actualy ended by rearmnament. most of the advice from people such as keynes were to incrase public works. Rearmnament was one of these.

the sudetan defencive line is not misconceieved!!!

whereever you got that from you should ignore it. On the history channel, the german military commanders considered themselves lucky. That was not a vague point it actualy showed documents containing these points. The british empire did not become bankrupt or fall apart. Britain hit its war economy long before the germns did. in fact in the period of 41-43 britain produced more planes than the germans. your point on llyod george is also idiotic. having read the transcripts or at least as close to what was available. Llyod george despite claiming he was "going to make germany pay" he actualy tried serverly to talk down the reperative costs, but couldnt. Besides by 1932 the reperation costs were already gone. the treaty of locarno i believe. signed by ramsey mcdonald again i believe.

and lastly the ludendorf offensives did not come that close to paris. besides the british blockade had cut germany of from alot of supplies. by the time of the surrender there was next to no food or ammunition left. it is unlikey that the germans would of been able to defeat the allies. the situation was so bad there large number of conscripted german troops that refused to move to the front line. The german command informed the powers that were that they did not have the manpower or ammuntion etc required to quell it. not to mention the civil unrest the general populus of germany were causing do to these shortages.

[JerseyJohn]

rog

It's nice to know I'm idiotic, thanks, and you're a genius.

Here's a map of central Europe.

Why would Germany have gone through the defenses when they could have gone around them the way they did in France 1940? I don't care what papers you're citing, when the actual event came up they would not have needless battered themselves against a fortified line in the mountains.

Screw what the countries were spending on defense, in 1938 Germany had millions of men already prepared to enter the army and the quality gap between German aircraft and British aircraft and was much greater than it was a year later. In 1938 Spitfires and Hurricanes were still being designed, the ME 109 was actually in use -- no contest between that plane and what the RAF consisted of around the time of Munich.

British war production was high, mainly due to sweetheart deals with the United States pushed throuh by FDR over and above the Lend-lease bill.

And yes, Britain did go bankrupt, it was one of the basic provisions of receiving Lend-Lease from the United States, the UK had to exhaust it's funds first and Churchill felt that was a great betrayal. Britain was in such great shape that it exchanged naval bases in the Caribean for fifty obsolete United States destroyers mothballed from WWI. Again, many Brits felt the United States was taking advantage of them.

Some of what you say has merit but essentially I don't respond to obnxious know-it-alls.

No point in discussing anything with you as you're already such a fantastic authority.

[ July 31, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Regarding WWI.

Everything you're saying past Germany's failure to accept peace after they'd won in the East is irrelevant to my remarks and, like your other remarks, more than a little obnoxious.

Here's a map of what the east would have looked like. Never mind what Lloyd George supposedly tried to do, I'm going by what actually came about as a result of the Versailles Treaty.

[roqf77]

you dorealise the sudetan land was 16,ooo square miles right? plus your map is out of date. checkoslovakia. check republic and slovakia at that time were one country. part of the sudetan land was actualy behind the austrian border. plus as it was more defensible and contained the majority of manufacturing it would of required defending anyway.

in 1938 gb had 1,075 planes availible. and germany 1,820. in 1939 uk had 1,750 planes. germany had 4,250. so from a difference of 800 planes to over 2000. and what your pointing out is economic wealth. in a war economy the resources you can produce is more important than money. churchill felt it a great betrayal, because the us was still largely selfishlyy thinking of what it could get out of the situation. and in terms of raw materials the uk continued to produce equipment of its own before and after lend lease. as as me being an authority i am not. but as you have posted a map post speeration which happend in 1993. over an argument due in 1930's says it all especialy as you failed to define which area the sudetan land was. austria or not germany would of had to attack the sudetanland.

[roqf77]

"Everything you're saying past Germany's failure to accept peace after they'd won in the East is irrelevant to my remarks and, like your other remarks, more than a little obnoxious."

and the same goes to you too. im not posting again. you think what you want too. i reponded the way i did because i believe you to be an obnouxoious know it all.(p.s that doesnt mean you were right about the german offensives of 1918)

[JerseyJohn]

One obnoxious Know-it-all to another, Fairwell.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by roqf77:

...i reponded the way i did because i believe you to be an obnouxoious know it all.(p.s that doesnt mean you were right about the german offensives of 1918)

Right, you were being preemptively obnoxious.

I said the Ludendorff Offensive was a mistake on Germany's part and it should have accepted the peace offer instead. I said it fell just short of Paris and you came in to quible that it fell not that short, or something along those lines and the blockade was crippling Germany blah, blah, blah. All of which I implied when I said Germany made a mistake in not settling for the peace offer.

But you don't want to actually discuss anything, what you really want to do is antagonize and try to make yourself appear the final authority. Be an authority, what do I care? Just don't do it by running around telling people they're idiotic. As for me being obnoxious, well, okay, I'll take your word for it.

[roqf77]

okay i get hot headed i spologise.

[JerseyJohn]

roq

We share that trait. As always it takes two to be wrong and I insist I was also wrong and apologize as well.

Glad you aren't leaving, whether we agree or disagree you present a lot of good views and back them up with historical events, which I always appreciate.

[jon_j_rambo]

Guys, I think it's time for a group hug. Lets meet later at my place...bring your history books, brew, & turn on the HD-History Channel so we can argue in style.

@Sir Jersey --- I love you man.

[roqf77]

vice versa. you make a good point about the raf. but i just think with alot of effort things could of been different. i.e the 6 pounder was initialy designed in 1938 and not introduced until november 1941. and it was an evolution of ww1 with industrial standards of that time. the 17 pounder took 9 months from the completion of the 6 pounder project. the valentine was crippled as was to a degree the churchill, by small engines. i mean the valentine only had i believe a 240 bhp engine(designed feb 1938 i believe). all of these things could of been done 5-10 years earlier if not more with a little forward thought. chamberlain couldnt of changed all this but he could of done alot more than he did. and although his reasons for his actions were noble, i think they were misguided. (random info apc etc were designed because of the tests on 17pdr ap)

[roqf77]

cool group hug. rambo im sorry i called you an idiot in a previous post. im just very passionate about my thoughts.(comes across as arrogance but it aint realy)

[jon_j_rambo]

@roqf77 --- Dude, I'm more of Smack-guy than history nut. I'm thick skinned & soft hearted, not much bothers me...except running out of Diet Coke & Amstel Light. I'm of the general opinion that the Germans "were good", but "not as good as everybody makes them out". There's always counter arguments to every stance, context is need, & definitions necessary. I'm also bias towards the USA/Israeli point of view, but can't bring that up because I'm on double secret probation.

Right now the only thing I care about is the $100 bucks I got bet on the Oakland A's to win the American League Pennant!

[jon_j_rambo]

AL Pennant - Oakland Athletics 60/1 $166.66 $9,999.60

[roqf77]

well good point. i agree with you on the level that the germans arnt as good as people make out. dont even get me started on that. im biased on the british, palestianian end. (although i have jewish blood so to speak, so i not to bias towards the palestinians) but as i pointed out in the other thread that is politics.

[jon_j_rambo]

Just got done watching the movie,"The Pianist", had never seen it. The Germans are some real sweet, caring, & kind people.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Guys, I think it's time for a group hug. Lets meet later at my place...bring your history books, brew, & turn on the HD-History Channel so we can argue in style.

@Sir Jersey --- I love you man.

Likewise, Brother Rambo, and that's a really great group hug picture.

-- There are times I sit staring at the screen arguing with the History Channel and there's nobody there. Most of their shows are excellent, but some of them either distort facts or just leave out information that would make all the difference. It would be a welcome change to sit and watch it arguing with both the program and some fellow human beings. Well, uh, wargame players in any case.

I forgot to mention why I think you'd like that Leo Durocher book; he was the all time smack talking champion. After he came up with the Yankees in 1925 his main job became aggravating the opposing players. Babe Ruth would tell him the things he should say to each of them to get the really steamed so they couldn't concentrate on playing, and after the game Ruth would block them in the runway so Durocher could make a quick getaway.

The Pianist is a really great movie. Kurt88 recommended it to me last year and I enjoyed it so much I bought a copy on DVD. The Germans you're talking about in the movie are mainly SS -- who everyone knew were sociopaths. The captain who saves his life in the end is regular army and, I hope you noted, he not only isn't a sociopath, but is actually a really fine person.

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

The Pianist is a really great movie. Kurt88 recommended it to me last year and I enjoyed it so much I bought a copy on DVD. The Germans you're talking about in the movie are mainly SS -- who everyone knew were sociopaths. The captain who saves his life in the end is regular army and, I hope you noted, he not only isn't a sociopath, but is actually a really fine person.

*ah-hummmm*

I think Comrade Trapp also recommended that movie to you as well, and what thanks do I get?!?

None! :mad: :mad:

If you want to make it up to me: You can always find an opening in your busy schedule tonight to play me in a game of SC. So how 'bout it?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by roqf77:

vice versa. you make a good point about the raf. but i just think with alot of effort things could of been different. i.e the 6 pounder was initialy designed in 1938 and not introduced until november 1941. and it was an evolution of ww1 with industrial standards of that time. the 17 pounder took 9 months from the completion of the 6 pounder project. the valentine was crippled as was to a degree the churchill, by small engines. i mean the valentine only had i believe a 240 bhp engine(designed feb 1938 i believe). all of these things could of been done 5-10 years earlier if not more with a little forward thought.

True. Very few people in Britain, other than Churchill, were thinking in terms of fighting another major war. British engineers and scientists developed the first jet engine in 1928, but decided it was too heavy to ever be usable. The Germans ran with the idea and had a flying jet prototype in the Spring of 1939. But the nazi leadership proved to be equally shortsighted and put it on the back burner in favor of producing a lot more prop aircraft for the war they knew would be coming soon.

None of the countries that were later involved in the war conducted perfect researc or preparations. As you said, the British had underpowered tanks -- which they felt should only move as quickly as the infantry they would be supporting. The German tanks were under armored, under armed and with the roles backwards on their two major models! Their view was exactly the opposite of that held by France and Britain. Armor was to run free of infantry columns and be fast. It wouldn't outgun a prepared enemy or stand a chance against heavy anti-tank guns, but -- the view was -- they need to as they'd be cutting and slashing behind the enemy lines, disrupting supply and communication. Italy had the same view. Their tanks were mainly very fast but death traps in battle. Where the Germans had the role reversed, was the Pz III had the anti-tank role while the heavier Pz IV carried a short muzzle cannon that fired high explosive shells for anti-infantry action. The thin armored Pz III was supposed to protect it!

chamberlain couldnt of changed all this but he could of done alot more than he did.

I agree, of course. But the thing is, it would have been totally contrary to his nature. The British of the mid and late 1930s, exactly like their American cousins, didn't want to face the idea of another major war. Chamberlain was in there because his attitudes were, for the most part, in tune with theirs.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Roosevelt was elected to a third term primarily because he kept promising to keep the United States clear of any foreign entanglements -- an empty promise if ever there was one because, rightly or wrongly, he felt from the start that the United States had to stand actively against agression.

... and although his reasons for his actions were noble, i think they were misguided. (random info apc etc were designed because of the tests on 17pdr ap)

Sure they were misguided, but there were other things going on, on the continent, that he had little control of.

A few years earlier, Britain and France all but pushed Italy into being Germany's ally (over Ethiopia, where again the actions were noble, but misguided). An immediate consequence was the German move on Austria. Actually, it's second move, a few years earlier Hitler had backed off because Mussolini said he'd go to war against him over it and -- by extension so would Britain and France, presumably. To his dying day Hitler felt grateful to Mussolini for going along with him on the Austrian takeover.

In 1936 Belgium cancelled it's mutual defence treaty with France, taking much of the meaning out of the Maginot Line -- the idea was to have a large French field army in Belgium at the start of a war with Germany, not after it been boing on for eight or nine months!

France made an alliance with Czechoslovakia that it only half-heartedly honored before renegging it entirely at Munich. Meanwhile, both Britain and France foolishly aliented the USSR and did nothing to counter Hitler's growing relations with Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.

All in all, there was an awful lot that Chamberlain would have needed to undo and very little of it that he was even aware of. I think he was a pretty fair leader but not the man for that particular time. He was obviously not a war leader. But in other ways I think he was very honorable and good; a decent guy you wouldn't mind having for a neighbor.

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade,

I've got the pope on one line and the president on the other but I'll tell them both to hang up and we'll start immediately!

I've forgotten how to set this stuff up.

-- PS, you're right, you did recommend it. THANKS!

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade,

Do you want to resume the IP game we broke off a while back?

[Comrade Trapp]

Jersey

Check your mailbox at Wargames and History.

[JerseyJohn]

CM -- going there now.

[JerseyJohn]

CM --

Sorry, I didn't realize it was after eleven till the Old Ball 'n Chain came in to drag me away to mercilessly subject her to wild and unbridled passion. Okay, so I'm fantasizing and turning the clock back thirty years!

If you want to start early tomorrow evening that would be great. :cool: