Andreas

Spelling, spelling, everywhere. It is either 'Ceterus Paribus', or 'Ceteris Paribus'. The online economics dictionary seems to think it is the former. Whatever All the best Andreas

I have never met or even heard of one, and I am from Hannover, well, Nienburg/Weser. As a family name, yes, and not uncommon. First name, never heard of that. Are they all cousins? All the best Andreas

Last name, shurely? All the best Andreas

That may not be the best one to start with. All the best Andreas

They were not common, but they did have an impact on the operational level in the first days of the war, when they stopped a Soviet Mech Corps from overrunning the HQ of 1. PD near Siauliai (Schaulen). This and similar events could have sent a clear signal to the Soviet high command that sumfink needed to be done with their newest toy, especially since at that point in time they may not have been clear about German AT capabilities, and their future development. That something was rare is not enough reason not to plan to deal with it - witness Zimmerit on German tanks. According to MikeyD's starting post, the 88L56 (easily the most common of the three in terms of AT work) might have had trouble to get through this level of armour and sloping at standard combat ranges. All the best Andreas

You can not send trucks grazing though, or rely on slave labour (sorry, local volunteers) to make hay for them. All the best Andreas

That's 20/20 hindsight speaking. At the time you can not know how much you will actually be able to achieve in terms of destruction, and how quickly the clean-up will be performed. Also, the order to destroy installations would have to be carried out in a very short time, due to the rapidity of the collapse of the German position in Normandy. The 1/2 million personnel (I'll check the figure tonight) were for the most part useless in any role on land. And they managed to deny the use of the ports when it mattered, i.e. during the dash across France. Once Antwerp was open they could have surrendered - before then they provided a vital service that, on balance, was probably more valuable than they could have done elsewhere. All the best Andreas

That actually appears to have been a fairly good idea. All the best Andreas

10cm K18 8,8cm Flak 38 15cm sFH18 Panzergranate Those are some I could think of. All the best Andreas

Finally got around to installing your winter HTs Pat. Now my Russian defenders will at least not cringe anymore while being machine-gunned by the German HTs! Thanks a lot again Pat. All the best Andreas

No problem All the best Andreas

Because they come from Arcadia. All the best Andreas

Yes. That would indicate it may have been a flamethrower attack to anyone who is not hell-bent on wanting to believe that it was an accidental ignition of an FT pack hit by bullets. It does not even say anything about Marine FTs being present, let alone suggest that those FTs which may or may not have been present ignited. All the best Andreas

I am quite convinced that the risk of this happening is the reason why US Marines did not take arguments along when they landed on Tarawa. It appears that flamethrowers were okay though. All the best Andreas

So, how many Marine flamethrower operators in this operation died because their flamethrowers blew up when hit by small-arms fire? All the best Andreas

Lots of soldiers were perfectly sure that they were assaulted by Tigers, when all they met were Panzer IV. They were perfectly sure that they were fired at by 88s, when all they got was a rain of 105s. They were perfectly sure that their Shermans were much more prone to go up in flames than the German tanks, when the Panther was about equally flammable. That's the 'determined digging' that John Salt exposed a few pages ago, right? That 'preponderance of evidence' is just the total absence of any other evidence than a bunch of dead marines, right? In your view, the absence of any further mention of Japanese flamethrower use with serious consequences is evidence that there was none? That's a mighty argument you've got there. All the best Andreas

Or maybe they did not want to have a heavy object strapped on their back while making it across the beach and through the water? Or maybe they did not have their weeties and did not feel like it? And how would these man have had evidence that it was likely that the FT would explode when fired at? IOW how can a belief that they might become human torches be evidence for your claim? These are the same soldiers who would have us believe that every German tank was a Tiger, and every gun an 88. So even if they believed something, it is as possible to be based on imaginary fears than a realistic appreciation of the situation. All the best Andreas </font>

Yes. I fully agree - that does not mean however that these imaginary fears are proof that they are not imaginary. All the best Andreas

Some question: 1) What were the Parthian/Germanic casualty numbers when Crassus'/Varus' legions were destroyed, i.e. what was the Roman casualty exchange ratio, and what do you base it on? 2) How do you manage to just come up with more nonsensical stuff in order to hide the fact that your original claim was nonsensical stuff, and do you think readers who took the time to respond to your nonsensical claim are stupid enough to not see through the fact that you simply have trouble admitting you are wrong? Inquiring minds want to know. All the best Andreas

You simply don't get it John. Let me make it really simple for you. Overloading soldiers is a real problem, in the real world, acknowledged by real soldiers, since the time of the Romans I guess. Flamethrowers blowing up because they take small-calibre hits has so far not been shown to be a real problem, in the real world. So, Jason and I think of a real problem, in the real world, as an explanation for the fact that the soldiers left the FTs behind. You however take the fact that they left them behind, and advance it as an argument for your pet theory, for which no proof has been presented thus far, and for which this argument is not proof either. I hope the difference between our thought processes, and why yours is a rubbish argument, and mine is not, is now clearer. All the best Andreas

Still better than yours, since you are not even pretending to take reality into account, but just make things up. They did not want to take the FTs - so it is true that they exploded when shot at. It's called 'non sequitur'. All the best Andreas

Or maybe they did not want to have a heavy object strapped on their back while making it across the beach and through the water? Or maybe they did not have their weeties and did not feel like it? And how would these man have had evidence that it was likely that the FT would explode when fired at? IOW how can a belief that they might become human torches be evidence for your claim? These are the same soldiers who would have us believe that every German tank was a Tiger, and every gun an 88. So even if they believed something, it is as possible to be based on imaginary fears than a realistic appreciation of the situation. All the best Andreas

Müncheberg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Panzer_Division_Muncheberg All the best Andreas

Woops - sorry about that. They went to the wrong email address (which is the right email address, but not anymore). I'll head over there pronto! All the best Andreas

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004994 All the best Amdreas