husky65
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by husky65
-
-
Originally posted by Norse:
lmao @ husky, you just can't leave it a rest can you
says the person who tries to put the boot in one last time.
I deleted the post because Moon asked us to get back on topic or he would lock this thread up. It had nothing to do with you, period. Leave it at this, there's nothing more to discuss.
~Norse~
Then you say you stand by your lies, have deleted them, yet want to get the last say on the subject? interesting to say the least.
-
Yawn, so far my attitude has done very well for me, thank you anyway.Originally posted by Norse:Poor husky, I pity you. Your bad attitude will not bring you great fortune
Now stop your whining, or Moon will lock this thread up.However, your blatant dishonesty clearly has not benefited you (I note you at least have enough shame to have since gone back and deleted your own post - frankly that just shows that you know it was dishonest and knew it when you posted it no doubt, I also note the lack of apology for taking my post wildly out of context).
However, if anyone wants to see the full text of it, I have a copy - something I learned long ago, when dealing with the stupid and the dishonest, keep a copy of the evidence.
Re 'Whining', I don't consider it whining to point out the deliberately dishonest in a public forum, I consider it a public service (it helps others avoid wasting time on you).
Perhaps if you had the courage of your convictions you would not have removed your sad little post, would you?
-
Originally posted by Norse:
At first you stated that Japan and USSR had not gone to war until 1945. Then I gave you a quick roundup of what led to the battles between them in 39 and 40, and now you have changed your original point from "they have not been at war", to "Japan did not attack USSR to support Germany". I quote:
Some of the most dishonest, out of context quoting I have seen in years - given that the context is the fact that Japan was not obligated to support Germanys wars of conquest and conversely Germany was not obligated to support Japans wars of conquest, I am at a loss to consider your post anything more than a blatant distortion of my post.
If we follow the absurdist line that you propose, the the USA directly supported a Nazi attack on the UK, because they had been at war with Britain before also.
-------------
My Original statement (below) on the subject, makes it clear that to get to the dishonest point you have arrived at you actually have to snip all of the context, including the Dec 7 date from around the bracketed part -
"A few problems with the above, the axis alliance did not require other members to assist one another in attacking other countries (note Japan did not attack the USSR), and so what if Japan has a falling out with Germany?
Japan had already crossed the Rubicon on Dec 7, there was no going back."
-------------
I was uncertain if I should consider you simply stupid or totally dishonest, the above makes it quite clear which applies.
but you must understand that what happened in Europe in many ways concerned the rest of the world (USA included)
Rubbish,
Can you please be so kind and inform me in what is rubbish with my above statement?
Another example of extremely selective snippage - I told you why it was rubbish - "the USA stayed out of the war in Europe until Germany declared war on the USA - the US people would not tolerate the US declaring war."
The US Pres told Churchill that he could not get the support of the US people to enter the war, well documented historical fact.
Are you saying India would benefit from a defeated Britain?
No, I'm saying that a US war in the Pacific would have - the Indians and Australians would have been devoting their entire resources and the USA the vast majority of their forces to defeating Japan.
"Do you see the level of concern the US people had for their merchant seamen? - their bodies were washing up on the shores in droves and they still did not want to turn off the lights."
Hm, if this is true, then it is a very chilling fact.
It is well documented historical fact, Admiral Doenitz named his operation "Paukenschlag", or "Drumbeat". From January 1942, Doenitz ordered up to 12 U-Boats on continual patrol - from the Gulf of Mexico to the heart of America's Eastern Seaboard. Between January and March of 1942, the U-Boats sunk 1.25 million tons of shipping, aided by the bright lights of New York, Miami and Atlantic City - all of which initially refused to impose a wartime blackout for fear of impacting tourism.
-
Agreed, once the Japs decided to try to grab the DEI oil, they had to grab the Phillipines to secure the oil route back, they also had to try for a knockout blow on the US Pac fleet and grab Singapore to secure their flanks.Originally posted by Old Patch:Concerning Phillipine Oil:
The big prize was the Dutch East Indies. Where the Phillipines became very important is their location across the primary sailing route beween the DEI and Japan, and from airbases (recently stocked with long range B-17 bombers) the Americans could inflict heavy losses on tankers moving oil.
The problem for them was the fact that it all hinged on an insane assumption - that democratic nations did not have the guts to fight - how you can hold that view 20 years after the Democractic nations fought the bloodbath of WW1 to victory and at the same time as the Brits had refused peace with the Nazis, I have no idea.
Once the US chose to fight, Japan was doomed, a simple comparison of economic out put shows that.
-
Originally posted by Norse:
Husky, after the russo-japaneese war of 1905, tensions remained high as both regarded Manchuria as their sphere of interest. They built railways directly to this area, so they could transport military forces quickly. With the Japaneese expansion, the armed forces of the Sovjet Union and the Empire of Japan therefore clashed in the battle of Chankufen '38, and in the battle of Nomonhan Bridge '39. The Japanees army did poorly against the Sovjets, so the Jap leaders were terrified that a continous war with the Sovjets would drain their resources away and make a general victory impossible. They therefore signed a non-aggression pact, which as we know, the Sovjet Union broke in 1945 as they invaded Manchuria.
Which is a verbose way of stating my point, they were not at war and the Japanese did NOT attack the USSR in support of Germany - did you have a point?
I also see that you regard ww2 as a European War, that's alright,
I would advise you to read my post again - I did NOT advance that view - I stated that it would be the American view about the European war and why should they get involved when they had their own war to fight.
So I will not address the stuff you have written arguing against a point I didn't make.
but you must understand that what happened in Europe in many ways concerned the rest of the world (USA included)
Rubbish, the USA stayed out of the war in Europe until Germany declared war on the USA - the US people would not tolerate the US declaring war.
For USA, ensuring the survival of Britian was of their own national interest once they were at war with Japan, as Britain in many ways was the seat of the Commonwealth - which as I stated were at war with Japan.
ROTFLMAO!!
UK was preserved because it was a convenient base to hit back at Germany and Germany was considered the greatest threat once they went to war with the USA, had the Nazis contented themselves with stuffing Jews, Gypsys, Trade Unionists and Homosexuals in ovens the USA would have done nothing - which was exactly what they did until Germany declared war on them.
Re Britain being the seat of the C'wealth - Australia and India both took steps to see to their own defence against Japan, in many cases wildly at variance with the wishes of the Brit leaders (see Aust withdrawal of troops from Tobruk as one example), losing the UK would not have had a major impact on the ability of Aust and India to contribute to a war against Japan (in fact you could argue that it would free up resources).
Therefore, even if Germany had NOT declared war on USA, then it is more than likely that USA and Germany would still be at war with each other, as Germany were a direct threat to the American national interests.
The problem with your argument is that, historically, the the US people never supported joining the war until they were attacked - look at the headlines post Dec 7 - there was no outrage against the Germans, no 'we'll get the dirty axis' - it was all at the Japs, yet you seem to think that the American people would behave differently - why?
Like I said, this war was not as you stated, a "purely European war", and it affected USA in many dangerous ways. War between Germany and USA was inevitable. If the cards had been played differently, then the only thing we can realistically discuss, is *when* they had declared total war against each other.
As pointed out before, you need to read my post again - I never stated the above.
You can look at an ecenomical point of view, why USA and Germany would go to war against each other. One of the reasons USA is a superpower today, is because of the demand for American goods during and after ww2.
This has no impact on the US peoples unwillingness to go to war, the Pres knew this, and knew he could NOT carry the public with him, historically he stated this to Churchill several times.
Do not underestimate the American will to defend their own interests here, when the Germans are using their military power to sink American merchant ships and military vessels.
You overestimate it vastly - US vessels were being sunk (including Military vessels) and the US people did NOT clamour for war over it, I suspect they saw it as the folly of a President sticking his nose into someone elses war.
You know as well as I do how patriotic the Americans can get once they get bullied with, and Germany had no choice but to bully with the Americans,
Stirring words, and wildly at variance with reality - the US people historically did little to push for war as their ships were sinking mid atlantic - hell, they were not even prepared to turn off the lights along the coast whilst the U-boats were using them to silouette US coastal shipping, because it might interfere with the tourist trade after Germany had declared war on them!
Do you see the level of concern the US people had for their merchant seamen? - their bodies were washing up on the shores in droves and they still did not want to turn off the lights.
if Germany were to accomplish their goal of isolating the British islands with their uboats. A nation that cannot trade with the other nations, will be starved ecenomically. The blockade on UK did not favor USA in any way.
~Norse~
What, exactly, is different about the UK? - The US people ignored the laundry list of countries being overrun up until that point, the US ambassador was telling the US Pres that the UK was doomed, yet he didn't (couldn't) act, yet you think that the US people would change their minds and want war when the UK was threatened?
Newsflash - the UK was widely believed to be doomed in mid 1941 (US reporters actually hurried to England to cover the invasion - they were that sure) and the US people did not care.
-
Originally posted by Mike:
Now how would the US like it if the Brits fell to the Germans, the Japanese Allies, and if India had been left relativeluy open to Japanese?
Given the track record of the American people, about the same way as they liked Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Abyssinia, British Somaliland,large chunks of Egypt, and large chunks of Russia (in no particular order) - ie they would not give a damn, to them it was a european problem that they wanted no part of.
What exactly do you think would have been different, in the eyes of the American people, about the Brits going under when they had sat still and watched millions of other people go under?
Australian and other Empire neutrality might occur, making life a little more difficult for the US in the Pacific.
Can't speak for the others, but Australia had been preparing for an emerging Japanese threat since 1900, so I doubt that Aust would have declared neutral.
And of course the ol' "Freedom of the Seas" and freedom of trade argument might come up agains too.
Why? it was a war zone, sailing into it is asking for trouble and the US people knew it, note the lack of frenzied agitation for a declaration of war on Germany when they sank a US destroyer.
Many of those convoys were largely US shipping, protected ENTIRELY by US warships on hte high seas.
Can you say "Lusitania"?
Yes, I can and its darned catchy - but given that the US people largely ignored the sinking of a USN destroyer by a U-boat in favor of keeping their heads in the sand, why do you think the continued sinking of US ships sailing into a declared war zone would make any difference?
-
You are dreaming my friendOriginally posted by Norse:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by husky65:
and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.
Japan and Russia also went to war against each other, check your facts 
WW2 was far from any "purely European war".</font>
-
Originally posted by Norse:
I for one cannot see any realistic way Germany could avoid war with USA. If you say "it's simple, just don't declare war", well then Germany would show it's allies that it cannot be trusted at all. That could have some really bad side-effects.
A few problems with the above, the axis alliance did not require other members to assist one another in attacking other countries (note Japan did not attack the USSR), and so what if Japan has a falling out with Germany?
Japan had already crossed the Rubicon on Dec 7, there was no going back.
Besides, the uboat war got the snowball rolling. The more Americans die in the atlantic, the more eager the US Navy wants to hunt the German subs down. Even if Germany express "sympathy" for USA, their subs would still be firing at American ships.
~Norse~
Firing at American ships that were in Brit convoys, sailing to Britain - the USN eagerness is of no concern - the US people are, and if the question were raised 'why are our ships involving themselves in a purely European war when we have the evil Japs to deal with?' then the President would not come out looking good and would not get much support.
-
The US people wanted to stay out of the war which made certain that the US Pres could do little.Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:On the options menu you have a choice for ameica.
1) Neutral, like that would happen.
Historically the US only came into the war because they were bombed and torpedoed into it.
Had Germany not declared war on the USA and started sinking US coastal shipping, it is hard to see how the US Pres could have convinced the US people to attack Germany when the already had a war with Japan to fight.
-
I preordered mine.Originally posted by Titan:Im in NZ so just waiting to see how long it is gunna take an Aussie or Kiwi to get it.
Im waiting on mine hope it aint going to be to long
-
OK, I'll do you a deal - I will buy the game and sell it to you for $500, I will only charge you $5 for the shipping (included in the $500).Originally posted by Brian Rock:Oh, it's not that I don't want the game, QUite the contrary. It's just the maths at this point and time say "no":
SC is $25, shipping to Australia is $10. So about 30% of the cost of the game is shipping! Savings, savings!
Now add in another game still awaiting shipping, like TacOps 4 ($25 + $1 shipping) and the cost is $61, but only 18% of that is shipping...
Great value, the shipping is only 1% of the total cost.
Or perhaps you could forget playing with the calculator and look at the total cost, delivered = $35 USD or aprox $64 AUD, now take $64 AUD down to the local software shop and see what you can buy (remember to take out $4.00 for bus fares/car fuel and maint).
$60 AUD will not buy much in the way of software.
Still, I am keen to sell you my copy for $500 when it arrives, what a bargain!
-
There were a number of plans put forward to assasinate Hitler, permission was rufused in all cases, because it was feared that someone competent might take his place and extend the war by years.Originally posted by Straha:In a way, with respect to thwarting OKW, Hitler more than once proved to be the best ally of the Allies ...
-
Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:
[QB]
"North Africa. Drive your tanks into a British PAK front and minefields. Then, massively reinforce you troops (Tunisia) in an irrevelant sideshow (N Africa) and have them all surrender shortly afterwards"
Other option, let you ally collapse and give away a base to bomb Germany from, perfect example of being swamped by numbers - do we have to go into detail about the failings of the allied lack of strategy in the Med?
"Norway/ Balkans/ Greece/ Denmark/ Benelux. Have large amounts of troops tied down in mostly irrelevant sideshows fighting partisan resistance who really don’t want you in their country. "
Norway, Denmark were strategically vital - do you think the Germans would have like allied troops based there?
Balkans, propped up an ally/secure the Barbarrossa flank.
Greece, Given that the allies had moved force W into Greece, it probably was a good idea to remove them before it became well reinforced and a bomber base.
Re Having to deal with partisans - the funny thing about invading other countries, is that frequently the victims resent it, if you have a suggestion as to how to be an expansionistic militarist dictator and not face this problem, no doubt the class would like to hear it.
"Russia. Get bogged down fighting for “prestige” city. Get cut off and defeated
Kharkov – OK, give them that
Citadel. Drive tanks into Russian PAK front and minefields
Korsun/ Bagration. Get overrun, cut off and defeated in detail
Berlin. Send last strategic reserves down to Hungary to retake Budapest"
All been covered, the Generals were not the problem, Hitler was - the Allies had the opposite problem, allied leaders mostly left operations in the hands of generals, who were not very good.
"Western Front. Argue about best way to defend beaches."
So, tell us what was the best way to protect the beaches? - you mean it isn't settled?
"Waste last strategic reserves in hopeless counterattacks (Lorraine/ Ardennes) in difficult terrain"
If you don't use them they are wasted too, by then the Germans were well and truely swamped by allied material superiority - it didn't matter what they did.
"Apart from Italy & Normandy (skillfully fought delaying actions in difficult terrain) don’t see much finesse. And arguably there isn’t much finesse involved in digging into bocage and mountains…"
Perhaps you need to actually read something about delaying defense and counterattacks/spoiling attacks on the eastern front?
"Face it, after the easy victories of 39-41 both sides where much of a muchness."
Your ignorance is showing, read something. anything.
However, the Allies were always going to out
"Such finesse"
Such ignorance, and publically displayed...
-
Originally posted by Old Patch:
[QB]Aloid;
Husky65;
Conway isn't a person, like Fred T. Jane (of "Jane's Fighting Ships"), it's the name of the company that publishes the series (and a lot of other neat books).
I know, I have Conways the worlds battleships
None of my references give either the location, number, or size of the bomb hits on the POW, so from that evidence I would guess that neither those who were there nor thse who studied the incident later felt that the bomb hits were a significant factor in the sinking of the POW.
I agree, however the bombs were a significant factor in which direction it rolled to sink.
The second set of torps leveled the list and then the bombs made a pathway for lots more water to come in the port side.
The fact that POW rolled to port does not prove that 1 x torp sank her (as conways contends), just that, when she was on the verge of sinking from 5 torps, she was hit on the port side by bombs.
As an anonymous American Admrial one quipped: "In attacking a ship, it is more efficient to let water in from below than to let air in from above" ("Attack on Taranto", Lowery and Wellman, p. 35).
Efficiency isn't the issue, your reference contends that 1 torp sank the POW (because of the direction she rolled), yet ignores the fact that POW was level when the bombs hit the port side, then she rolled to port - join the dots conways.
-
Originally posted by Aloid:
He has a 22-incher and he's playing computer games? -
Jesus! I didn't know that Telstra was active in overseas markets that long ago...Originally posted by Immer Etwas:[QBWhen my father was a youth on the farm in Ohio, for awhile they didn't even have telephones... [/QB]
-
That will obviously depend on where you live.Originally posted by Sgt. Recon:Ditto!
When can we expect it?
-
Conway apears to neglect the fact that the bombs hit midships, port side.Originally posted by Old Patch:[QB]"It is however essential to explain how Prince Of Wales was sunk by a probable total of 1 330lb and 3 450lb torpedo warheads charged with the type of explosive used by the Germans in WWI. The 330lb charge broke off the 'A' bracket of the port outer shaft. . . Subsequently three torpedoes with 450lb charges hit the starboard side one of which bent the outer shaft wedging the propellor between the inner shaft and the hull, but it should be noted that the ship capsized to port."
[QB]
-
I don't know if they used the same T-34 chassis as were used in Saving Pte Ryan, but in both cases T-34s were used - the size is wrong (Tigers were monsters), but the overall look is very well done in both cases.Originally posted by J Wagner:At least the Tiger tanks in Kelly's Heroes look like Tigers and aren't US Pattons dressed in gray!
The give away is the tracks and suspension.
Sometime next week, I will be able to retire a 15 yr old VHS copy of Kellys Heroes with full honours and no negative waves...
-
The POW was struck in the stern by 2 x Japanese air delivered torpedoes (a remarkably similar hit as was delivered to the Bismark, sealing its fate seven months earlier), then 3 more, POW was then hit by bombs before sinking.Originally posted by Old Patch:The POW was sunk by a WWI era torpedo with half the bursting charge of a full sized torpedo.
It seems that there was a bit more to it than a WW1 class torp.
-
Just out of curiosity, can anyone remember another game that shipped prior to its predicted official release date?Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Yes, just got the official word myself, the game is shipping a bit earlier than expected from both the US and Irish warehouses. All preorders should be out the door by tomorrow at the latest.
-
More importantly, Kellys Heroes releases on R4 DVD next week!Originally posted by J Wagner:To think, next week the game should ship and The Lord of the Rings comes out on DVD. A good week to stay out of the heat!
-
Having a plan to send your Panzers into action is not the same as being able to do any good with them, I have already posted a number of quotes relating to the effectiveness of NGS against armoured formations (to quote Rommel), the reason that ops in Normandy were 'tremendously hampered, and in some cases even rendered impossible' was the 'effect of the heavy naval guns. up to 640 guns have been used. the effect is so immense that no operation of any kind is possible in the area commanded by this rapid fire artillery, either by infantry or by tanks', I have also posted the fact that the allied put up 10,585 sorties on Jun 6 in the invasion area.Originally posted by TrionDelta:Husky,
ive heard from many sources on the history channle, Books etc. that the germans had the ability to destroy the allied landings on D-Day. An SS officer had drawn up the plans to send his Panzers in action,though he couldnt move w/o hitlers ok and no one would wake him in Berchesgarten(dont know how to spell it). This has been stated by many ppl including Eisenhower and his Aide. also not all of the Divisons were understrength before D-Day a crack SS divison had been transfered from the russian front and they were near full strength.
If you mean Panzer Lehr as being the full strength elite unit -
"The ordeal of the German Panzer-Lehr Division offers a good example of the fate awaiting German ground forces in Normandy. Ordered north to confront the invasion, the armored division got underway in the late afternoon of June 6, and came under its first air attack at 0530 on the 7th near Falaise. Blasted bridges and bombed road intersections hindered movement, particularly of support vehicles. So intense were the attacks along the Vire-Beny Bocage road that division members referred to it as a Jabo Rennstrecke-a fighter-bomber race-course. Air attack destroyed more than 200 vehicles on June 7 alone. Despite the rainy weather, which had threatened the Allies' landing on the beachhead, fighter- bombers continued to strike at the Panzer-Lehr Division, to the dismay of German soldiers who had hoped the worsening weather would offer some respite. This was just the beginning of an ordeal that would last throughout the French campaign; Panzer-Lehr was in for some more rough times in the near future."
-
Utterly, utterly, wrong B-17 (all US bomber) crews were renowned for massive overclaiming - the reason for this is that whenever a fighter was shot down, usually 50 or so gunners were shooting at it, and they all claimed it in good faith.Originally posted by TrionDelta:what u dont realise is that B-17 crewa acounted for 2/3 of all german fighters shot down, "escorts" didnt reach germany till '44 i belive mayb late '43. this was stated on a history channle specail on the best bomber of all time
You also run into the problem that a/c engines belch smoke when sharply throttled back (as you tend to when you roll into a dive) - so 50 gunners see a fighter, that they are shooting at, belch smoke and dive away = 50 claims for a kill, all submitted in good faith and no fighter actually destroyed.
Compare kill claims from Schweinfurt to actual Luftwaffe losses - 288 claimed - according to Adolf galland 35 actually lost.
I would suspect the figure that Bombers shot down 2/3s of all German fighters is wildly erroneous - if this had been the case there would have been no need for escorts.
Re the B-17 being the best bomber of all time - that can be argued for and against on a number of points (I would restrict any argument to between it and a/c from a similar time frame)
But personally, I would argue that the Mosquito B.XVI was a better bomber (delivers a more effective bombload for less resources expended), you could make the same claim for a Lancaster.
The B-17 made a great decoy duck, which was its most effective role - bringing the Luftwaffe up so the fighters could kill them.
If you feel the best WW2 bomber must be an American a/c, I would suggest the B-24 or B-29
Now stop your whining, or Moon will lock this thread up.
WW2 was far from any "purely European war".</font>
Hubert, Very Important feature required for SC!!
in Strategic Command 1
Posted