Leopard_2
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Leopard_2
-
-
I just lost a lengthy post to a browser hickup... :-(
I'd say it's the other way around. Small arms don't win battles, but they might tip the scales just that crucial bit. If every encounter would have cost the Russians two men more than it did, and the Germans two less, would that additional attrition - constantly applied over many months - have given them that little more momentum it would have taken to capture all of Stalingrad, including the west bank of the Wolga? Would not having a beachhead have cost the Russians so dearly that the Germans could have swung around the tide again?
(No, I don't want to discuss that particular example; I just used it to show how minor cause, over time, could result in major effect.)
I think that's why it's so hard to picture. It's easy to imagine how, if Germany had Panthers in 1941, they could have wiped out the Russian tanks. It's easy to imagine how Fw190's could have turned the Battle over Britain. But a Stg42 in 1939 wouldn't have had any super-uber-devastating effect. Just a trickle, a constant additional bias in losses.
I think it could have had a major effect.
-
I've been doing martial arts and American Football for well over 10 years, and while I injured my knees early off and still am in pain occassionally, that was about all I had in the way of issues with by body.
Then I had to drop out of university and get me a job, which meant that I went to training Monday, job interview Tuesday, and donating my Football equipment to the team on Wednesday. Yes, I know you should never, ever do this - I studied Sports and Biology, I know it, but there was no way around for me.
I then went to drive a truck for about three years (sitting and having your spine vibrated into tallow, with intermediate heavy lifting), then went into the IT industry (sitting hunched over the keyboard all day). I never got to pick up some other sport, since swimming, running etc. feel so incredibly dull after what I used to do for sports, and the martial arts clubs around my new place of living suck big time (what with MA being an "elite premium you-don't-know-how-to-spell-my-style" sport instead of the down-to-earth self defense it used to be in the 80'ies/90'ies).
My back muscles deteriorated, and I went from a 74kg Defense Back capable of open-field tackling 110+ kg Running Backs cold to a 90kg couch potatoe.
So here I am, at 32, and while virtually everyone here cracks his knuckles now and again, I crack my spine every 15 minutes or so to get some relief, while trying not to think about my sciatic pain syndrome (right lower back, for me).
And while I can't get my ass up to do something about it, my recommendation is clear: Find a sport that gets you moving. It needn't be swimming - which can actually be harmful. Breast is a back (and knee!) killer, for example, while backstroke is good if done right.
Almost any sport will do good, as long as you take it easy. Not only will it improve your back muscles to relieve your spine, it also gives you a better feeling of how to move and hold yourself, so you don't sit hunched or make sudden twists.
Nothing will take away the chance for a sudden stab of pain and immobility, but staying in movement improves your chances.
-
Just so that you know people read and enjoy your AAR (even while I have never played SC myself)...
Uh-oh... where did I read that before? Ah, yes, in the history books...Originally posted by Terif:August 3, 1941:
- Sealion postponed...
-
[deleted, got it the wrong way around.]
[ January 12, 2005, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: Leopard_2 ]
-
Because, just for once, the mods decided that initial disagreement and flame-festing could actually turn into better understanding of each other, removing of misconceptions, and agreement.Europa wrote:
Why isn't this thread locked?
At least, I hope they did this intentionally (instead of just missing it), because it would be a nice change from the usual, rather oppressive MO that leaves far too many threads locked before the involved parties could even get to the point.
Dandelions later posts, for example, changed how I perceived his point of view significantly. If it weren't for junk2drive's really off-the-mark last two posts, this could be a point of putting this discussion to rest without having a mod interfere, and with something the casual reader could think about.
@ Dandelion:
Very good posts there, and something to think about. I was very much afraid this thread would fall for the usual "hijacked thread" and "close it!" cries before the good and sound arguments come on the table.
He later confessed that his order was a mistake... but that "binding of forces" was what made him give it in the first place IIRC.That even Hitler confessed it was all a horrible mistake is, for once then, ignored.
That's what we know today it was. Do you think the soldiers on the Eastern Front had their knowledge from today's history books? Or rather from the propaganda they were fed? They (or, most of them) surely did believe in their "epic" struggle to "defend" their homeland now that the war was on.Steiner also mentions the need to defend Europe. He feels it is left unmentioned in the movie. And it is, since the movie is about an unprovoked assault on the Soviet Union.
There have been several votes taken e.g. after Austria or Czechia (sp?), which showed overwhelming support for the Nazis. Granted, those weren't exactly democratic votes as we understand the term today, and heavily influenced by a state-controlled media, but nevertheless.I am afraid we have no conclusive figures on political opinion in Germany after the NSDAP was invited to form a government.
What I intended to point out that any such re-evaluation that even just tries to explain e.g. motives of German soldiers very quickly becomes subject of revisionism blames. (Like any criticism on today's Israeli government gets smitten as "anti-Semitic" even when it has nothing to do with race or religion or whatever.)I do not believe in any "objective" reality at all. That word is always used by people preaching their personal beliefs. History is not objective science, you cannot repeat experiment or prove a thesis. Even the evidence at hand - documentation - is subjective and vulnerable to manipulation and personal interpretation. Lack of documentation - or lack of research - make all academic work on history incomplete and subject to future re-evaluation.
You'll probably not face any such blames if trying to explain that General Harris and 8th bomber fleet didn't intend to hit civilians, or that the Germans as a people were especially warlike. A case of double-standards, in my eyes - which doesn't excuse Steiner's more extreme utterings.
Now you are contradicting yourself You said before that Germans portrayed as believing in the Nazi cause is never portrayed, and now you say it is generally accepted to portray all Germans as believing in that cause.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.
</font>
-
"Coaxial" refers to MG's that aim in the same direction as the main gun. You probably mean top-mounted MG's. (Sorry I can't come up with the correct phrases, my version is localized...Originally posted by BigDork:AA guns, flak vehicles, and certain tanks with MGs (coaxial?) are the only ways to combat air strikes.
)
-
Doesn't matter. It's not about whether the statement is true, but about whether the quote is true. If it were, that would be indeed an issue of free speech, and I would take strong exception to any attempts of pressuring Steiner into removing it.Originally posted by willbell:Leopard,
Sorry, you are just dead wrong. Even if Sharon said it, it doesn't make it true.
Since the quote is fabricated, the point is mood, and since Steiner obviously wouldn't budge, it's in the hands of the moderators now. I was just pointing out how some here swing to the opposite site just as extremely as Steiner here.
Can we put it to rest now?
-
What it matters whether Sharon said it or not? It matters the world... if he said it, there is nothing anybody could - or rather, should - say about removing it, ever. As that would be freedom of speech.
If he didn't say it (as evidence strongly suggests), it's not a quote, but a fabrication, and as such should be removed.
But on a different tangent, it's "nice" to see that everyone assumes Steiner is a Nazi, instead of just malinformed as to the validity of his sources.
It's reactions like these that gives the real Nazis much of their rhethorical ammunition in the first place: Failure to react matter-of-factly, providing proof to the contrary instead of swinging the anti-Semitic club against everybody.
(Sorry for dragging it across two different threads now, I already said most of my mind in how to remove ski and will finally shut up now.)
-
As an afterthought:
The reason why we - that includes me - do not accept Nazi lies propaganda in our midst is because we all agree that hate-mongering, deceiving of the masses and aggressive imperialism must never happen again.
Agreed so far?
Then it is important to realize that it wasn't necessarily something inbred in the German soul, or the Versailles treaty that led to this war and the holocaust. It wasn't something that happened because they were Nazis or believing in being Arisch or hating Jews or because they believed they were better than the Slavic people.
It was the combination of many factors, including being at the receiving end of a stiffling "treaty" keeping a nation from prospering, and a group of people successfully making a nation believe they are superior to others, and that there are "races" or "religions" so much inferior to them that they must be oppressed and deserved whatever they got.
And once you bring it over you to get to this abstract level - push the atrocities that happened in the past into the back of your mind for a second and look toward what happens today and might happen tomorrow - you will realize that the German soldier on the Eastern Front, the US soldier in Baghdad, and the Israeli soldier guarding settlers in the "autonomy zones" of Palestine might have more in common than you'd like.
And once you are at that point, perhaps that enables you to judge certain statements - of those you flame as revisionists, and of those you call your leaders today - in a bit of a different light.
No power to revisionists, no power to neo-Nazis. 100% ACK. No power to anyone who thinks he is so superior he has a right to tell another people how they have to live. And if any answer seems to be too obvious, too natural, question it.
-
"Ignorant and offensively loud redneck (peasant) who is nonetheless tolerated (even affectionately) for reasons incomprehensible to those outside his family."Originally posted by Sequoia:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leopard_2:
Give me a better definition of "good ol' boy"...
HTH
Michael </font>
-
Ah, ah...
That's how you read it...Originally posted by Dandelion:If Steiners message is not clear to you, he finds the movie revisionist, denying the heroic sacrifice at Stalingrad and not mentioning the need to defend Europe by assaulting the USSR.
I'd actually agree with him that no war movie I know (including "Stalingrad", perhaps with the - partial - exclusion of "Das Boot") ever shows German soldiers believing in their fight, showing comradeship and heroism on their own just like the Allied troops do on the other side. They could do so because they're hard-core Nazis, or because they fell for their propaganda. In any case, it's a part of history that is always left out. Same goes for the fact that 6. Armee did bind major ressources.
I'd also agree with you that it's a touchy subject indeed, but by no means sufficient (in itself) to label Steiner as Nazi or hatemonger.
Which is hard stuff indeed, and I'd agree with you on that point.This is Steiner reacting on a suggestion from Mikey that communism might have had appeal on the German labor force.
...while there still were democratic elections. Support for the NSDAP skyrocketed once they were in power, because of their short-term "successes".The NSDAP never reached more than 40% support in any category of the labor force...
And the communist / left-wing powers in Germany had a large part in destabilizing the Weimar Republic to the point where the NSDAP could get to power.
The big problem is that any attempt to get an objective view on things is immediately smitten with the big hammer of "revisionism", "anti-Semitism" etc.These are typical Wiederbetätiger statements, they all sound the same and they all read the ten or fifteen books revealing the Real Truth about the Nazis and the war. Where the Nazis are made heroic victims, Germans are warheroes and the rest of Europe is one big aggressor, and Judaism the source of all evil.You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.
And even a differentiating view is frowned upon: That the Versailles treaty was never intended to create a peaceful neighbourhood of nations, that France and England missed a great many opportunities to stop Hitler early, that Europe of early 20th century was at large suspectible to "extreme" and/or instable forms of government (with even France having serious trouble stabilizing their democracy)... all this is true, all this is recorded history, and even then it makes me look like I'm sympathetic to the NSDAP, which I most assuredly am not.
I could ramble on, but I hope this was enough to show my point: Your view is probably just as flawed as Steiners, just more popular / politically correct.
-
You are aware that Germany had an A-bomb program of their own that might have been ready by fall 1945, too, with a bit of a better tide of the war? (Including means to deliver to, say, New York.)
I don't even want to think about the possibilities. What kept the USA and the Soviet Union from blasting each other sky-high during the cold war was the overkill: None could have survived a first strike.
In 1945 / 46, there wouldn't have been the potential for overkill. In a way, mankind bombing itself back into the stone age was more likely then than it is today.
Weapons of mass destruction are no means to achieve your goal. Ever. I think it's woeful that so many countries (with the US at the front of it) have apparently still not learned that lesson, and are still working on them.
But I see that you don't see it, and probably never will, so I withdraw from this argument. I shouldn't have returned for the new year in the first place.
-
Really that high? I seem to remember that the US ability to produce the necessary Uranium / Plutonium was very, very low at that point, but I couldn't find any ressource on that ad hoc.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:Plus, the rate of production was only about a half a dozen a month at first. This gives the Germans a lot of time to come up with counter-weapons and tactics.
-
Required if you start discussing which was the "best equipment" used in killing one another, right?Berlichtingen wrote:
You have a truly Victorian view of war.
How many soldiers and settlers lived because Colonel Henry Bouquet gave blankets carrying pox to the Indians?GSX wrote:
I cannot agree that Strategic bombing were like the pox and measles. How much of germanys war effort went into countering the strategic bombing threat?
The goal of 1943-45 city bombing, the A-bombs and the pox blankets was the same: Weaken the enemy by killing as many of them as you could, making no distinction between soldier or newborn child. If enough are killed, they will stop fighting as a nation, either because there aren't enough left, or because they can no longer stand the terror and overthrow those in power so they can surrender to an unmerciful butcher of an opponent.
The end does not justify the means. Targetting civilians, or accepting thousands to die as "collateral damage", is something I despise so much that I don't count the means as "best equipment" contenders.
Get me right. I do not doubt for a second that, if the Luftwaffe had the means, London would have faced a better fate than Hamburg or Dresden. I do not unilaterally blame the Allies for the tactics they could employ because of the tide of that total war. And I do not think that war is something honorable (as my signature should prove).
But I would just as well refuse to even consider any German strategic bomber as "best equipment of the war" contender.
-
Erm...Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:Can't agree with this - the Sherman pretty much out-performed any T34 built at hte same time.
I'll just say I read the technical data a bit differently. Petrol engine, less horsepower / ton, less vertical obstacle / fording / trench crossing, armor I'd call "comparable" except in the "easy eight" variant (when you take e.g. the thinner turret armor into account)... I'd agree if you'd prefer to call it a draw, but I don't see "out-performing" there.
-
@ Skolman:
Same issue as strategic bombers (of that time): they target civilians, or at least, consider large numbers of civilian deaths "acceptable collateral damage".
As such, I deny them the "honor" to be considered weapons of war. That would be like calling pox and measles the most important equipment of the Indian Wars...
-
A question that can't really be answered. For one, the wording "important equipment" more or less implies that German equipment is not included as they didn't win so their equipment "wasn't as important". And even then there's a world of difference between "effective" and "good"...
Tanks
The Sherman was a decisive factor because it could be mass-produced in previously unknown quantities, but I wouldn't dream of calling it a good piece of equipment compared to its peers on the tank battlefield (where I'd look at the T-34 and the Panther).
Fighters
The P51 was the most decisive airplane in the end, but what would have been if the Me262 would have had numbers, fuel, air superiority over it's airfields, and the proper raw materials for its engines (i.e., if Germany hadn't effectively lost the war already when it appeared)? The Fw190 wasn't that bad either.
Bombers
I have a strong dislike of the whole issue of "strategic bombing" so I'll gracefully skip the issue and simply give an honorable mention to the Ju87 (for precision) and the Ju88 (for versatility, doubling as night fighter, air destroyer, transport, ...).
Infantry Weapons
The Sturmgewehr44 and the MG42 were easy to produce and handle, rugged, and of excellent performance. Sorry but I don't see any Allied weapons close to them.
Ships
The Liberty ships had quite some impact, yes, but my vote goes to the Bismark class battleships (i.e., the Bismark and the Tirpitz). Just two of them, and neither made it into the open sea, but look at the panic they instilled and how many ressources they did bind...
On the Allied side, I'd add aircraft carriers, as without them (the Arc Royal, actually) the Bismark might even have gotten away. They also won the US naval war in the pacific.
Misc
Dry-cell batteries. They enabled the US forces to give a radio to just about everyone, an advantage not to be ignored.
The 8.8 gun, for versality and the "bring 'em on!" morale boost it gave the troops.
Winner
Radar. It won the Battle of Britain, and it defeated the submarines, which - if it weren't for radar and sonar - would have had a heyday among those cheap Liberty ships with their not-so-cheap cargo.
-
> How do you say "good ol' boy" in German?
Literally, "guter alter Junge", but I'm not sure that's what you intended to say. As the term doesn't seem to be properly defined in your language, "Bodenständig" (down to earth) is the closest I could come up with. Give me a better definition of "good ol' boy", and I give you a better translation.
> I don't see the "feuerstrohl" being directed
> outside the fenders...
Feuerstrahl.
-
As I strongly believe in applying the same amount of doubt to both sides of the story, I did a google on the quote, and - aside from a great many third-hand quotations on homepages and in forums - came up with this page which strongly suggests that the quote is false.
IAP News is the "Islamic Assosiation for Palestine", hardly a "neutral" news source. I was unable to find any sources referring to that quote other than through the IAP item. If those words were uttered where the public could hear them, you'd think others but the IAP would have heard.
As such, I'd second David I and General Colt on this one.
Steiner14, if you want to voice criticism on Israel, you have to tread doubly careful, since the "nazi" and "anti-Semitic" tags are far too quickly applied to you even if your sources are sound, and in this case they aren't.
-
Tell me, in a PBEM game where you only make one turn at a time, how often did you have to save your game?Originally posted by Le Tondu:If this is happening automatically and no one can control aircraft, how can his opponent possibly be cheating?
-
Relax, dude. Keeping quiet about loopholes doesn't make them go away, it just reserves the knowledge of such a bug to the cheaters.
Now you know it's possible, and might get the hint if you're being cheated so you don't play against a cheater again.
-
It's not only the propellant, but the metal quality churned out by Krupp, Rheinmetall and others, at least up until mid-war when ressource shortage made quality drop.
-
For excellent work like that, feel free to ask me anytime, at solar (at) rootdirectory (dot) de. Preferably with the pic / English line included.Originally posted by RawRecruit:Ahem...pesky online English to German translators!
"Wir sind getroffen!"The first one was meant to be "We have been hit!".[/QB]
-
I don't wanna log in over there and screw up a nice AAR comic with language nitpicking, so I'll do so here:
"Wir werden geschlagen"... I guess RawRecruit meant "we are being defeated", but the German line is more like from a soccer commentary. "Die machen uns fertig" is more like it.
"Wir engagieren den Feind"... that's actually funny, as that means having the enemy sign an employment contract. "Feindpanzer!" (enemy tank!) or "Feind gesichtet!" (enemy sighted!) sounds more appropriate.
Just trying to help with an otherwise excellent work.
)
Impact of Small Arms on WW2.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Bigduke6, you fell to the wrong impression that I meant better small arms would have made a difference at Stalingrad.
What I meant is that a small advantage, continuously applied over a long period of time, could have made a medium difference, which - at the right turning point of events - could have turned into a large difference.
Increase Allied infantry losses by 5%, across the board. Decrease Axis infantry losses by 5%, across the board. Would the Russians still be fanatically defending Stalingrad, or would their morale and/or manpower be so drained by that additional 10% difference that Stalingrad - or some other "crucial" battle - could have turned out differently?
As was pointed out before, we're talking a very subtle cause here, which can't have any "big bang" effect. But chaos theory being what it is, small causes can amount to big effects.
Like, what would the effect be if Russian railroads had the same width as German ones? A nuisance in supply logistics being removed, but what would have been the results?
What if that radio operator didn't make that stupid, stupid mistake on 1941-08-30, repeating a message with the same code, which allowed Allied cryptanalysts to defeat the Lorenz SZ40, instead of high-level communications remaining secret for longer than they did?
All this minor causes...