roqf77

well. the best trained troops. after 6months or so in the field it would depnd more on experience than anything else. unless you were equiped by the italians.

"I now picture roqf77 dancing around the house singing: "if i were an ituitinist Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum" how did you get that picture?

rambo, i understand what you are saying, but the german generals were ham stringed by other factors. i.e low ammunition and equipment supplies. Something the western allies and russians did not have to deal with.

well largely i know its true, from playing games and getting panther glacias penetrations and single hit knockouts with stuarts 37mm. but not all. that all it was. not a insult against mathamticains or models in general. "For people who like to contemplate the practically limitless expanse of human ignorance, consider that armour penetration is the thing we probably know the most about of all the things that go on on the direct-fire battlefield. Surveillance and target acquisition, suppression and situation awareness are all much harder topics and much worse understood." 100% true. although if i were an ituitinist i would of just known that already,

well good points. i never actualy managed to sit through that film. its just my understanding from my uncle on my mothers side and all of his friends who i spoke to, that he was overly agressive and to willing(not saying he was the owrst by any means) to often to trade his mens lives for results.especialy ones that made him look good. i have never met(although i have met only a few) anyone irl that served under him that had anything(and i mean anything) good to say about him. although i know indirectly of a fair few people(i.e websites and such) that do. just my impression from those i have spoken to, out of monty dempsy bradley and sorry tha canadian guy's name escapes me and patton. that he was the bottom of the pile(not that he was the worst commander in the allied army by any stretch, just the worst of his level in that campaign) whether or not this is true i dont know. accounts of him tend to be incredibly bias either way.

true. but he got alot of people killed. the blood and guts comment, was actual meant as an insult towards him. something like its his guts but our blood. although having said that rommels troops in north africa at least were not particulaly found of him either.

good story? but you meant bradley and montgomery right?

unless your goin at 75mm or 50 mm with uparmoured churchills. in one game one knocked out 3 75mm in one turn. although they did track it

rambo.. lead nato. Dont make me laugh. Pay un's bills? err well actualy nobody pays what there supposed to. its a little bit of a crisis. to hellraiser, good points but he has already says he more of a smack guy than a ww2 nut.(not sure what that means). as far as the comaprison go's its a little off. the germans had an inferiority in supply numbers then. plus patton had a habit of attacking small numbers of germans. and when it gets rough he has a habit of failing, look at his attempts to cross the rhine. although there is one clear comparison. majority of the troops that served under them had somehwhat of a dislike(certainly every one ive spoken to her served under patton disliked him).

well to jump, im sure someone will post something significantly more substantial. but i had been led to believe that the french capituation in 1940 was more down to politics. vichy france which happily collaberated with the nazi's, used there political power to undermine them where they can.(p.s i admit freely here i am no authority, nor have i spent hours looking it up. sorry to offend anyone)

and it still isnt hearsay. that would be a rumour someone told me. seriously though if thats the case you should get a job makig this documentries.

yes i do actualy. as i clarified it as being simply what i heard. and in another that i was not an authority. but yes as i was not on holocenagenic drugs, i will bet it is what i heard.

err rmabo. oil! very simple. real estate is irrelvant. they didnt invade libya ofr houses. secondly patton did not get rommel. not even close. they never directly met. and the us engagements in na were largely disaterous. especialy early on. patton rose(rightly or wrongly)to prominence in this atmosphere. i dont think patton engaged him in normandy. so they never realy met.

well. that was there plan. and if you look closely at a map it makes sense. only clarification i would add. it was the collapse of the italians that sent german forces there in the first place. i think the plan would of developed after. and they came very close. i can see your point about not wanting to glorify the nazi regime so please dont take this as an arguemnt.

plus alot of tanks and aircraft.

not sure who was responsible? hitler i believe, the italians were buckling. in was in order to gain oil/ try to stop a second front forming. well it did have a chance but would of required much more manpower much sooner. of course you may have the point that this may bot of been available as barborrosa was not long away.

cheers looks like a good site.

okay, fair enough. but you were being rude yourself. you could of responded in a civil way. instead of being so sarcastic. and you made several assumptions about the intentions of my post that were wrong. so in short its not the fact you disagreed with me, its how you put it. i admit it im not perfect, i wont make a perfect post all the time. if you look back emrys was replyng in a civil manner to a speculative post by some one else. who in your own words didnt put the leg work in. i was simply saying a heard this too.

actualy i was ellaborating on a comment by emrys. i never once said in my opinion he was the worst general in ww2. history channel, ukhistory, bbc and discovery arnty exactly hearsay. i was mearly pointing out that i am no expert on the subject. if you are you should enlighten us. rather than getting on your high horse. be careful or you will end up like dorosh.

cheers jons. im not preaching as a gospel truth. mearly stating what i heard. i was informed there were radios available and were not used. they were left where they were. im sure it may not be true but thats all i was saying.

true. but i heard on a documentry that he chose to use carrier pigeon over radios. and was given dates and times off the invasion. and ignored them. so ge may well of been under serious constraints. but that isnt to say he didnt make serious mistakes. especialy as it was as i have been led to believe, the lack of radios which led to the airfield being taken allowing the moving of enoughtroops to take crete.

true. but back to topic. rommel hands down. now rommel v bradley thats another matter.

yes. my point exactly.

sorry to cause the offence i have. im merely speaking from persoanl experience. the only god model i have experienced is combat mission.

BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT REAL FIREING TESTS/ EXPERIENCE OF REAL LIFE TANK CREWS.(opps dont mind caps) or are you saying i should swallow everything thats put in front of me?