John D Salt

You're right, I'm wrong, I'll go back and change it. I can't remember who it is who misses out "I", but it isn't the US Army. All the best, John.

You're right, I'm wrong, I'll go back and change it. I can't remember who it is who misses out "I", but it isn't the US Army. All the best, John.

I swear I've seen a platoon commander called Tereshkova, which is clearly a girl's name. All the best, John.

Nope. Assuming the regular allocation of letters to companies, "G" would be in the 2nd Bn of a normal leg infantry regiment, exactly as Jon said: 1 Bn A, B, C rifle coys, D heavy weapons 2 Bn E, F, G rifle coys, H heavy weapons 3 Bn I, K, L rifle coys, M heavy weapons {Corrected -- there is no "J"} "G" would be in the 3rd Bn in an organization with no heavy weapons coys, such as parachute infatry, again as John said. Contrast this with German practice, where the infantry gun and anti-tank companies were numbered 13 and 14 even in two-battalion regiments where companies 9 to 12 were missing. All the best, John. [ April 03, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

Nope. Assuming the regular allocation of letters to companies, "G" would be in the 2nd Bn of a normal leg infantry regiment, exactly as Jon said: 1 Bn A, B, C rifle coys, D heavy weapons 2 Bn E, F, G rifle coys, H heavy weapons 3 Bn I, K, L rifle coys, M heavy weapons {Corrected -- there is no "J"} "G" would be in the 3rd Bn in an organization with no heavy weapons coys, such as parachute infatry, again as John said. Contrast this with German practice, where the infantry gun and anti-tank companies were numbered 13 and 14 even in two-battalion regiments where companies 9 to 12 were missing. All the best, John. [ April 03, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

Both the Sherman and T-34 had sights for indirect fire; I'd be amazed if most other HE-capable tanks didn't too, regardless of Germanity. FM 17-12 "Armored Force Field Manual: Tank Gunnery" of April 22nd 1943 devotes 28 of its 102 pages to the topic of indirect laying. And of course there are those well-known photos of Shermans in Italy acting as substitute field artillery. All the best, John.

And three letters of the Cyrillic alphabet were shot, although one was partially rehabilitated. Looking for something else entirely, I just came across this: http://www.portsdown.demon.co.uk/ord.htm ...which includes a list of "Such ordnance as are usual in England" from 1639. Convert the given calibres and shot diameters into millimetres, and you'll see a lot of familiar calibres. None of the new-fangled Frenchified 75mm, 105mm and 155mm, though. I may start saying "Robinet", "Falconet" and "Minion" instead of 37mm, 57mm or 76mm. All the best, John.

Both sights are offset to the left. </font>

It also gives you a considerable amount of flexibility, considering the number of different ammo natures that could be made available (smoke, illum). In particular, for less-lethal operations, CS gas and baton rounds would be feasible, as with the old ARWEN 5-round rotary launcher in 38mm, which looks broadly similar. All the best, John.

No "interpretation" is involved. If US Army companies were lettered sequentially within the battalion, as you appear to be claiming, when would there ever be a sub-unit designated "Easy Company"? "Love Company"? All the best, John.

No "interpretation" is involved. If US Army companies were lettered sequentially within the battalion, as you appear to be claiming, when would there ever be a sub-unit designated "Easy Company"? "Love Company"? All the best, John.

For the US Army, I believe that: Squads are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within companies Companies are lettered within regiments Battalions are numbered within regiments Regiments are numbered within the entire US Army Divisions are numbered within the entire US Army Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry and armored divisions (so airborne divisions are numbered along with the infantry). Contrast this with British practice, where: Sections are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within battalions Companies are lettered within battalions Battalions are numbered within regiments Brigades are numbered within the entire British Army Divisions are numbered within the entire British Army Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne and colonial divisions, but the numbering is not necessarily sequential. For the Germans, I believe it's: Sections are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within companies Companies are numbered within regiments Battalions are Roman-numbered within regiments Regiments are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht Divisions are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe divisions. Corrections welcome. If anyone can tell me what Russian practice was, I'd like to know. All the best, John.

For the US Army, I believe that: Squads are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within companies Companies are lettered within regiments Battalions are numbered within regiments Regiments are numbered within the entire US Army Divisions are numbered within the entire US Army Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry and armored divisions (so airborne divisions are numbered along with the infantry). Contrast this with British practice, where: Sections are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within battalions Companies are lettered within battalions Battalions are numbered within regiments Brigades are numbered within the entire British Army Divisions are numbered within the entire British Army Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne and colonial divisions, but the numbering is not necessarily sequential. For the Germans, I believe it's: Sections are numbered within platoons Platoons are numbered within companies Companies are numbered within regiments Battalions are Roman-numbered within regiments Regiments are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht Divisions are numbered within the entire Wehrmacht Separate numbering sequences are used for infantry, cavalry, armoured, airborne, Waffen-SS and Luftwaffe divisions. Corrections welcome. If anyone can tell me what Russian practice was, I'd like to know. All the best, John.

This line up seems to fit the avialbale evidence from various books. The apparent oddity is mixing 3rd and 4th Btys landing at 0300, but then both Para Bdes landed at the same time, so it makes sense that each would bring some A-Tk guns with them. Can anyone see any issues with that landing schedule? </font>

Errh, no (scratches head, tries not to look confused). Wait - both batterys? </font>

"Go to it!" seems to think that 211st AL bty landed on D-Day with 6 AL Bde, and the other two batteries were to arrive "the following day". Whether they did or not is not stated completely unambiguously. As Napier Crookenden was Bde Major of 6th AL Bde, I'll take a look in his "Dropzone Normandy" when I can find where I put it down. </font>

Clearly not; you obviously have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad. I know you said that. And I pointed out that it was an incredibly silly thing to say. There is no difficulty at all in deciding whether or not a town with defences is defended or not. Your argument is broken. Get a new one, rather than repeating the same crackpot drivel. I think you must allow me to know better than you what reason I read your posts for. Why the hell would I be interested in attacking you? I am simply pointing out that your arguments are utter rubbish. The reason I do this is that your arguments are utter rubbish. Of course you don't see any inconsistency. You obviously have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad. If you would care to recall my original challeneg to you, it was to demonstrate that all (qua all) area bombardment is now illegal, If you think you've done that, it can only be because you have great difficulty distinguishing good argumentation from bad. You might also take a look at the UK commentaries on the 1977 additional protocol, which make it clearer how the UK would interpret the rules in action. I merely point out that you advance an argument first put forward by David Iriving. In the restricted compass of this little newsgroup, I don't expect you to put forward all the arguments first put forward by David Irving. Yeah, I wonder what he's like in real life? No, what I didn't understand was how you could fail to understand this from the defintions of the words "defended" and "defences". No ****, Sherlock. Tell me, are there any other extremely well-known and commonplace facts you're going to assume I don't know? Two points. First, you aren't arguing until you present a well-formed argument. Second, I'm not calling you a Nazi, I'm calling you a muddlehead. I'm calling the arguments you appear to be attempting to make Nazi, because I have heard them from Nazi apologists so many times it's really not funny any more. Now you go on my ignore list until you get yourself a clue. All the best, John.

Because Kitchener copied the technique from the system of quadrillage used on Cuba during the Spanish-American war. Before WW2, concentration camp still meant what you would expect from its component words, a camp in which people are concentrated. A chap I know, now dead, who served in the RAF during WW2 ran a concentration camp. After WW2, with the opening of the Nazi camps, the term came to have rather a different connotation. It doesn't matter which interpretation you use, the idea that concentration camps were a British invention is untrue, but it is often clear from the context in which the claim is made that the speaker is attempting to conflate the pre-WW2 understanding of the term with the post-WW2 one, thus fulfilling the late and unlamented Dr. Goebbels' intention in telling the lie in the first place. As for the British inventing the term, that may well be correct, but it's like saying that the Americans invented the term "object orientation" in computer programming; the term may have been American, but the original invention was Norwegian. All the best, John.

Cute. Again for you: </font>

Yup, I get baffled by the over-complications some people are prepared to indulge themselves in at times. Dunno, you'd have to ask a good player to find out; but, since we know that the nature of expertise is that experts are often unable to explain their expertise, you may not get a comprehensible answer even then. Practice, as they say, makes perfect. But I would offer two very simple, general pieces of advice (which are free of charge, and worth what you paid for them): 1. Above all else, try to understand how the ground works, and how to use it in your favour. Tactics on the direct fire battlefield ultimately depend on the fact that it's much easier to hurt targets you can see than targets you can't. 2. All successful tactics boil down to one thing; fort contre foible, pit your strength against the enemy's weakness. All you have to do now is learn all the strengths and weaknesses of all the pieces in the game! All the best, John.

Hard to see what the difficulty is. You appear to be arguing that a place can be considered undefended because the only defences it has are, ummmm, defensive in nature. What grass mod are you smoking? All the best, John.

Really? What evidence do you have that supports that? </font>

I disagree. Honour that is applicable only when it's easy to do so isn't a terribly worthwhile kind of honour, IMO. The idea that all area bombardment is a war-crime is, I think, a mistake. Please post your source for believing that it is. Indiscriminate or reckless attack of civilian objects is now a war crime, certainly. However, given the presence of actively resisting enemy forces in the city, I doubt that anyone would consider a bombardment such as that on Wesel to be illegal even under the modern convention, which acknowledges "military necessity". You seem to be quite badly confused about both the facts of history and your line of argument. Waging wars of aggression was outlawed by the Kellog-Briand pact of 1928, an international agreement to which Germany was a signatory. Aerial bombardment was not outlawed by any such international agreement. The reason one was illegal and the other wasn't was the usual reason for such a state of affairs, namely that a law was passed prohibiting one, but no law was passed prohibiting the other. I'm not sure what gives you the idea that there is some kind of coupling between the two questions. All the best, John.

What interviews? All the best, John.

"Go to it!" seems to think that 211st AL bty landed on D-Day with 6 AL Bde, and the other two batteries were to arrive "the following day". Whether they did or not is not stated completely unambiguously. As Napier Crookenden was Bde Major of 6th AL Bde, I'll take a look in his "Dropzone Normandy" when I can find where I put it down. All the best, John.