Andreas

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong. Option one: German records - I don't know why you seem to believe that the Germans did not keep records of what happened to them, and that only the Soviets had those. The ships in Leningrad and Kronstadt continued to be a major source of concern, and operations against them, such as engagement by heavy artillery and the 1942 air attack offensive would have been documented in the relevant war diaries, just like the 23 September 41 attacks were. Interestingly, in the German AG records for the day the hits on the ships were acknowledged, but their status was unclear, and judgement of success withheld until it was clear whether the ships would engage again in the land battle (see relevant footnotes in Leeb's edited diary). The status following the attack was clarified only a few weeks later by a Soviet deserter. Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking). Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war. All the best Andreas

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong. Option one: German records - I don't know why you seem to believe that the Germans did not keep records of what happened to them, and that only the Soviets had those. The ships in Leningrad and Kronstadt continued to be a major source of concern, and operations against them, such as engagement by heavy artillery and the 1942 air attack offensive would have been documented in the relevant war diaries, just like the 23 September 41 attacks were. Interestingly, in the German AG records for the day the hits on the ships were acknowledged, but their status was unclear, and judgement of success withheld until it was clear whether the ships would engage again in the land battle (see relevant footnotes in Leeb's edited diary). The status following the attack was clarified only a few weeks later by a Soviet deserter. Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking). Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war. All the best Andreas

I believe the British were the first actually, did they not use troop carrying tanks in WW1? All the best Andreas

No thanks for reminding me... All the best Andreas

No thanks for reminding me... All the best Andreas

Yes. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000098 Later in the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004176 Also recommend this one, started by fellow forum member JonS at my instigation: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=87408

Yes. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000098 Later in the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004176 Also recommend this one, started by fellow forum member JonS at my instigation: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=87408

I suggest reading this: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion. All the best Andreas

I suggest reading this: http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion. All the best Andreas

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why. But my guess is that you would rather continue flogging the dead horse, so you won't do it. That makes the rest of your post pointless blather which I won't respond to. All the best Andreas

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why. But my guess is that you would rather continue flogging the dead horse, so you won't do it. That makes the rest of your post pointless blather which I won't respond to. All the best Andreas

1. The Marder never did receive an integrated ATGM, except on AT specific models. 2. IMHO, a milan that could be mounted on the pintle ring is not the same as a TOW, fully integrated into the vehicle. 3. The original Marders were upgraded to thermal sites only when the Bradley had entered production, or shortly before. 4. It didn't get a real robust fire control system until well after the Bradley had arrived. Again, IMHO, the Marder didn't get close to the initial Bradley until the Marder 1 A2 came out. The Marder was intitially produced as nothing more than a good but very conventional IFC with a 20mm auto cannon. </font>

Non sequitur. There is no doubt for me that Rudel was a successful pilot. That does not mean that I buy the 500+ tank claim or agree that he sank the Marat. All nations manufactured their heroes during the war. Good examples (other than Rudel) for this are e.g. Wittmann, or in the Canadian case Major Curry V.C. Again, both of them obviously very brave and capable soldiers, who deserved their decorations, but it is clear that once they got them, they became an object of what today would be called media-hype. In the case of Curry, this did not lead to score inflation, and was restricted to having him tour Canada to raise money and support Canada's commitment to the fight. In the case of Wittmann, it is arguable (as Michael Kenny does and I find that convincing) that it led to kill inflation, and I see no reason not to suppose that the same was the case with Rudel. All the best Andreas

Non sequitur. There is no doubt for me that Rudel was a successful pilot. That does not mean that I buy the 500+ tank claim or agree that he sank the Marat. All nations manufactured their heroes during the war. Good examples (other than Rudel) for this are e.g. Wittmann, or in the Canadian case Major Curry V.C. Again, both of them obviously very brave and capable soldiers, who deserved their decorations, but it is clear that once they got them, they became an object of what today would be called media-hype. In the case of Curry, this did not lead to score inflation, and was restricted to having him tour Canada to raise money and support Canada's commitment to the fight. In the case of Wittmann, it is arguable (as Michael Kenny does and I find that convincing) that it led to kill inflation, and I see no reason not to suppose that the same was the case with Rudel. All the best Andreas

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened. But hey, you go on believing what you will, I don't really care. All the best Andreas

Sorry SO, but you are the one making an assumption here. Where did I say he needed Soviet archives to find out what really happened. But hey, you go on believing what you will, I don't really care. All the best Andreas

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that. All the best Andreas

I have read somewhere (no idea where) that German soldiers were encouraged to bring their cameras, at least early in the war. There does not appear to have been a prohibition of that in the Wehrmacht. Certainly my grandfather never mentioned anything like that. All the best Andreas

My instincts tell me that is the forum the "insiders" use to laugh at us and plan new methods of playing with our minds. </font>

That'll be later this year then. All the best Andreas

French AMX-10P also came before the Bradley, apparently. Same question - what about the Bradley is revolutionary compared to the AMX-10P? As far as I can see, but would be happy to be corrected on, all three (Bradley, Marder, AMX-10P) were a reaction to the 1967 unveiling of the BMP-1 - it is just that the US took a lot longer to get to introduce their vehicle. It is interesting to see that the French went the wheeled route with the AMX-10P successor, the VBCI, after the dissolution of the European consortium approach, while the Germans stuck to a tracked vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9hicule_Blind%C3%A9_de_Combat_d%27Infanterie FK - regarding the A400M is scheduled to start flying in Q1/08. It is becoming much less hypothetical while we speak. Let's hope they manage to avoid the A380 meltdown. http://www.a400m-countdown.com/ Note that the Puma with add-on armour will also cease to be A400M transportable. All the best Andreas

I think that also CMBB/AK continued doing company level best. Anything above was just opening too many cans of worms, in my view. It could be done of course, but it was clear to me at least that it was forcing the game to do things it was not designed for. All the best Andreas

Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later? And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so? So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy. Doesn't change one bit of my point. All the best Andreas

Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later? And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so? So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy. Doesn't change one bit of my point. All the best Andreas

Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... </font>