Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
US Army was the only one to field a semi-automatic rifle as standard;
The Red Army went full auto.
they also pioneered rocket propelled anti-tank munitions ("Bazooka").
And left it at that for the next 20-odd years.
So where does this come from?
Lets see: the 37mm gun in M3 was lisence built Bofors, 40mm AA Bofors, Oerlikon lisence built Swiss, British helmets used early on, Enfield rifle. Attempts to replicate MG42 failed.....
These off hand.
US Army was among the first to get rid of wool tunics in favour of more practical garb
During WWII ? Not according to this guy.
(though the M1944 wool jacket was supposed to be a field garment, it wound up rightfully so as a walking out or dress uniform, and the M1943 combat jacket became standard combat dress).
They had some dreadful stuff; cold weather gear was inadequate (Canadian soldiers commented that the Americans "looked colder" than anyone else in the winter of 1944-45)
That much is clear.
the 1943 uniforms were not produced fast enough, the wool greatcoat was never repalced by something like the excellent German parka or even leather jerkins as worn by the CW.
That effectively defeats your previous claim.
But to say that the US Army simply recycled the equipment of others doesn't hold up.
Lets see:
I do not read that as meaning recycle.in essence, was to copy, duplicate, replicate and produce the Infantry equipment of other nationsI don't understand why you would bring this up?
Why single out only the M3 Grant/Lee incident when there is a wealth of remarks and opinions to go over.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
To the first - prove him wrong, Tero, don't make unsubstantiated and very general claims.
Jason can't be proven to be wrong in his opinions. What I find wrong is his attitude towards the opinions of the other guy which are based on actual experiences and data he knew it at the time. And which he admits to in the very first paragraph of the page.
Then again I guess you yourself missed this bit too
To the second - the P17 rifle is no mystery. They were exchanged between Canada and the US at some point during the war and used for training at home.I was a Canadian citizen and did not have to go.It is no mystery. The mystery is how I could Google it in a few minutes but Jason did not bother to check the validity of the guys statement before jumping all over the "faulty recollection" and other seeming mistakes in the data.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
I am allergic to hyperbole, fanboys, injustice, ingraditude, vindictive spite, and forum nannies, but not to anyone simply describing a piece of equipment as inadequate when it is.
Did you actually read the preface before you went into "EXTERMINATE" mode ?
Has anyone ever praised a French 75 on a halftrack? (lol).This article is about my experiences and impressions as an infantry soldier who did combat in the European theater of operations.I do not speak nor claim to speak for the entire Division. I note that GI's (particularly my dear friends Neal Burdett and Jim Haahr) with the 101st Infantry Regiment of the Yankee Division tell me that their Regiment was well managed and they have enormous respect for the command of that Regiment.
With apologies to John Keegan this is about "The Face of Battle" and, in many ways, the result of reading all of the Keegan war works.
Not that I have seen.
Then again the Germans converted the same gun into a stop-gap 75mm PAK
In the case of the M3 medium the guy stated:
Your "debunking" this rant was way out of line and constitues prosecuting a heretic and not rectifying some "historical inaccuracies and factual mistakes".The vital flaws in this tank are fairly obvious and why anyone with any knowledge of tank warfare would produce this monstrosity is beyond me. There were people in the American Army who knew tank warfare from A to Z (General George Patton) and it had to be produced without their approval.What are the flaws? For starters:much too high a profile, too straight a frontal area, a main gun that could not traverse more than 30 degrees so that the tank had to be turned to point the gun, escape hatches on the side and not in the back!
This was after the characteristics of the German tanks were well known since they had been on the battle field field since 1939! Whomever designed the GRANT apparently did no or little research or it was designed by a committee!
On the 2 million US made Enfields of late WW I, touche and a fair point, of the "something new every day" variety. Don't see anything wrong with them, unlike the original website, but it was news to me.
The guy goes way beyond the outdated gear in his appraisal of the US infantry:
Again, his view is contrary to the established mantra about the "ingenious citizen soldier army".I was taken out of Officer Candidate Prepatory School [OCPS] since the war was going to be won in the air and no more infantry officers were needed) That meant that a vast effort went into producing, improving and researching airplanes.It also meant that the infantry was hind tit and the innovations were negligible. All that we did, in essence, was to copy, duplicate, replicate and produce the Infantry equipment of other nations.
[ December 19, 2006, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
Show anyplace where I believe the conventional hype. Heck, define conventional hype.
Seemed to me you are at least allergic to bad mouthing US made gear. Especially by ex US service personel.
Show anything he taught either you or me, that we didn't know before.
Found these site 1 site 2 which claims there was such a thing as an US Enfield rifle used by US troops in some capacity during WWII.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
I am not a veteran of WW II, just of a peacetime stint in the modern US army, sure.
I did my national service in the Finnish army. Peace time at the time when we still had the WWII stuff stored in reserve.
I utterly deny your argument from authority however, to its roots. Vets who were there say different things, where they differ anyone can find one a more plausible source than another, and no one can possible believe them all, since they contradict each other.
Agreed. But you choose character assasination which amounts to falling like a ton of bricks on the one which contradicts your POV (the commonly accepted less than critical hype). You choose to focus on the minutae but bypass the valid overall critique he presents.
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
If his tone is praiseworthy as unvarnished and honest, there is no reason not to react the same way to my forthright unvarnished and honest assessment of him, as - you know the rest.
The thing is he is an actual veteran and you are not. No matter how poor quality his facts may be you are in no position to admonish his opinions which are based on facts as he experienced and knew them. This is why I think you are prosecuting (if not persecuting like I posted earlier) a heretic because he is not in the bandwagon unguestionably admiring the US military during WWII.
We Finns have had to deal with similar "facts" of dubious origin when discussing and debating Red Army veteran memoires concerning the Finnish front (Winter War Cuckoo snipers tied to trees etc). And of course there are the in-house debates concerning different interpretations of the events and facts as presented by Finnish veterans.
I have witnessed very few attacks of this kind on the veterans character and person just because he is clearly not with the programme.
[ December 19, 2006, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Good points, particularly the trench foot issue. I probably over emphasized discipline, but perhaps we agree that it was largely preventable and that at some point, at least in some cases, the soldiers themselves are at fault - wittingly or not.
Did they know trench foot existed before they got it ? AFAIK it was/is always (in most armies) the platoon leaders job to make sure his men are taking care of their gear and themselves to the best of their ability.
Also, from previous debates on the issue, you guys have always put the blame on the resupply system which put low priority to such things as socks and laundry.
Come to think of it, did the US army platoon have woodburners and tents necessary for the prevention of trench foot in field conditions to begin with ?
The Replacement Depot system has been roundly criticized.
Nicely putting the blame in the system instead of the individuals integral into the design and development of the system.
-
Originally posted by JonS:
Firstly, because it wasn't. The British used the Lee/Grant for over a year against the Germans.
My bad. I was counting from El Alamein (November 1942) to Tunsia (May 1943) when I should have counted from Gazala (May 1942) onwards.
Secondly, because something even better came along about 5 months after the Lee/Grant's debut.
I thought Sherman was replacing Lees in the US units already during the African campaign.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Because something better - the Sherman - came along, in short order, in sizeable quantities. Playing stupid was never becoming on you before, Tero, why do you insist that it might somehow be so now?
Just wanting to point out that Jasons outpour was leaning towards the side of grandstanding and browbeating and that while Grant/Lee was adequate it was by no means excellent. The British may have wept over its excellence but the Red Army tankers did call it the Grave for Seven Brothers (IIRC).
I believe the Churchills also made their debut in Tunisia, where some were even credited with Tiger kills and the ability to traverse steep terrain considered impassable by the Germans.
Churchills being used by the British I think is an outlier when discussing the old gits opinions.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I noticed our friend wasn't quite clear about the use of gaiters and his own memory admittedly didn't jive with that of fellow veterans. They didn't wear "shoes", they all had boots. He's being misleading, probably not willfully, but no one sent US soldiers into battle in loafers. And the boots they had may have been poorly adapted to cold conditions, but they were no worse than the British Ammunition Boots that CW soldiers wore in both World Wars. My regiment's predecessor, the 10th Battalion, CEF, suffered very few cases of trenchfoot - the reason? Discipline. Morale. You changed your socks regularly, used whale oil when available, and if lucky rotated out of the line regularly. The latter was no doubt not an option during the Bulge for many, and I have no idea what replaced whale oil. But the point is that trenchfoot was considered an indicator of morale and discipline in the CW armies and no reason not to apply that standard to the US Army. If buddy's unit was suffering from trenchfoot, it probably wasn't because of their boots (incidentally he calls them shoes only because he is contrasting them deliberately with the later, newer, two buckle boots that were introduced with the 1943 combat uniform which, as he points out, may not have been universally supplied as fast as he would have liked) but may have been indicative of soldiers too miserable to try and look after themselves. In other words, if his pissy attitude when he made that website was the same when he was in the service, I'd look to that to explain his foot problems.
The trench foot did not affect this fellows unit alone. IIRC the US Army suffered several divisions worth of medical casualties due to this affliction during the winter of 1944.
More like mocking a douchebag, if you ask me.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
At any rate, Jason's post dealt primarily with matters of fact, not opinion.
Yes. But the way Jason presents the facts is opinionated.
For one, if Grant was something to weep of joy over because of its excellence why was it relegated to Far East not 6 months after its combat debut ?
Also, the old git does raise a very valid point about trench foot. Which Jason steers cleverly clear of because it is one of the more valid gripes which is dead on right and historically correct.
Jason clearly espoused matters of historical fact that the website in question discusses solely as matters of opinion.
Jason is not addressing the failings alone, he is persecuting a heretic.
-
Originally posted by Dandelion:
But you should know Andreas - Lotta means female soldier in Swedish (I think).
The Finnish female auxiliary force was called Lotta Svärd after the charater (IIRC a girlfriend or wife of one of the main characters) in Runebergs "Stories by Ensign Ståhl".
Lotta is a Nordic womans first name and AFAIK has no warlike connotations in itself.
-
Statistically speaking the combat losses are in general greater than total losses.
If you care to take a look at the figures at
http://www.winterwar.com/Tactics/FINatTactics.htm#losses
it can be seen that in this case the total losses (includes mechanical breakdowns)/write off ratio was in the order of 9/1 and combat losses/write off ratio in the order of 4/1.
From sources I counted the total number of Tiger I's and II's produced was 1 844 and the total in the stat is given as 1 715.
From what I gather the stat shows sPzAbt 501 for example wrote down Tigers in its inventory as KO'd or written off 120 times during its entire existence. Is that consistent with the actual orbat of 501 during its existence ?
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
The doctrine that the weak ought to be exterminated is modern; you can find it stated as bluntly as you please in Nietzsche.
You are forgetting they left weak infants, old and/or infirm to die in antiquity (and beyond).
Active extermination was rare in this respect but that does not mean the people were opposed to killing off (=exterminating) the weak.
And extermination of groups of people based on their blood line/heritage/ethnic background is a time honoured human tradition not in the least restricted to modern times.
The doctrine that disbelief in any doctrine promulgated by the state or by a king is high treason and capital, is modern;
Promulgating one deity in a society with a host of deities was a certain way to get executed in a number of non-modern cultures. And going against the wishes/doctrine of the ruler (ie established social order) was also dangerous to ones health as can be seen in the cases of countless squashed revolts.
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
But all in Norwegian. It is enough to make a man weep.
Stop whining and start reading. German is close to Swedish and Swedish is close to Norvegian.
With your level of intelligence I would not think it would take much effort to read the texts.
BTW: the stamping on the "unknown SMG" reads MP18
-
Originally posted by Corvidae:
Realisticly ,
-the soviets suffered from poor leadership, and poor training,
But on the up side they (historically) were a bitch to root out if entrenched.
-Soviet weapons were poorly made,
A patently false statement. Just like the AK the pre-WWII and WWII arms worked better (more reliably) in less-than-ideal conditions than the kit other armies had.
-Soviet ammo was cheap, and it showed,,,,,
Quantity has a quality of its own.
-
This raises an interesting legal guestion:
What about people who plagiarize ? Do they infringe copywright laws when they publish other peoples work as their own ?
-
Originally posted by Sergei:
The Trekkies, at least, have this:
Too bad Mr Sulu turned out not to fully appreciate what was on offer.
-
Have you guys raided the old SSI codes form the pre-SP C64 (and I guess AppleII) games ?
Those games allowed continuous play. Orders could be issued by hitting the space key and the game would stop at the start of the next pulse. When the orders were given the game would chunk along until the time limit/victory conditions were met or the space key was hit again.
-
Will there be stationary booby trapped/command detonated car bombs ?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:For sure DRIVING civilian cars won't be in CM:SF because civilians won't be. But parked/abandoned cars actually have some impact on tactical ops (i.e. cover and obstacles). We just have to see what we can do about that when we get to it.
There is no problem with the physics of nudging stuff out of the way (had it in CMx1) or possibly even driving over them (an Abrams can flatten a car quite nicely). If we get cars in there we'll have to do these things.
Steve
-
Roger that.Originally posted by Kurtz:There will be no suicide bombers. Check Steve's post in this thread, the second post from the bottom.
-
All right !
One minor point though: how do you spot the suicide bomber driving his car towards your check point ? Especially if NO civilian vehicle is running in the game.
It would be a bit on the stupid side if the only moving civvie vehicle is ALWAYS the suicide bomber.
-
So the new game is going to be a "modern strategy game".
I for one am glad to hear this because the strategy aspect in the CMx1 games is woefully inadequately represented.
-
Perhaps the focus should be shifted from the big, well documented armies to the more obscure conflicts and lesser armies.
Former Yugoslavia, Chechenia and Afganistan (both early 80's and now) have been indicative of the type of combat operations the armies will be facing in the future. Then you have your low interest protracted and largely ethnically based, conflicts in Asia and Africa where all you need is a kitchen knife to arm yourself for the fight.
To me it seems that it is not what you have but it is rather your willingness to use it is what determines the level of conflict and how bad things get.
UN and NATO forces in former Yugoslavia (and the Iraqi army to some extent) are examples of abundance of fancy stuff but unwillingness to go that extra mile to actually make them count before it is too late to prevent the actions and reactions to run their course in full.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Weapons in use today are fairly well known in terms of their capabilities. It doesn't take a lot of imagination or research to see how they can be used. And I'm not necessarily talking about inventing a new use for a weapon that someone else hasn't already predicted.
I take it you will you allow such standard stuff as tank main guns as well as ATGM's targeting helos. For example.
The RPG vs. Blackhawk was a KNOWN threat before it happened. The only guys who were surprised were the poor bastards who were shot down.
Were they briefed on the RPG menace and they forgot/ignored it or was the use of RPG known to the high command via Special Forces Afganistan briefs but not passed down to operational units ?
A vet's unflinching account of service in the 104th Reg. 26th Inf. Div.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:
or better yet, served as a Finn so that he wouldn't have necessarily gotten even an uniform and much of the equipment would PREDATE WW1.
I aboslutely loved these bits