blue division

The use of the term 'evil' helps us to get our heads around what humans are capable of. As for the Nazis, they combined the latent chauvinism that is probably in every nation, and combined that with centuries old anti-semitism from Central/Eastern Europe, with a good handful of good old fashioned 19th century thinking from the West (Eugenics, the 'State' and militarism). Yes, given the right conditions any state or people can fall into a fascist state. But Germany's Nazi Party was uniquely German - no other country (in the West) could have done what it did with quite the same remorselesness, coupled with a feeling of indignation and self-righteousness (the Germans always thought they were the aggrieved party in the war, right to the end). You have to look normally outside Europe (Asia / Africa) for such crimes - the Nazi experience offers a lesson in just how 'civilized' the West really is. I haven't seen the film, but it is right that Germans make their own film about Hitler - it will be good therapy. I for one think it must be very difficult to understand if you are German the criminality of the Nazis with the sheer banality of the leadership of the Nazi Party. Perhaps it will help them put it all behind them. I don't think any film on this subject could ever be a form of entertainment. The subject is just too queasy for the audience. [ April 06, 2005, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

Good to see you back, Andreas.

Come on, let's have the responses from the Gang Of Four please

Hang on, weren't VG divisions equipped with SMG's?

The opposite to pure drivel. You are Mr. Tittles, aren't you? </font>

The Red Army was still modernizing in 1941. It could have sone better in this regard, but most of the promising officers had been shot three years previously. So you have basically an army that is still stuck in the pre-mechanized era to a large extent (they still didn't appreciate just how violent the coming conflict would be - unlike Hitler who had a very clear idea). It is perhaps unfair to criticise the Soviets - the Germans were ahead of everyone else in this regard until 1942, when the rest of the worlds resources for warmaking were brfought into play.

First point - Russian in summer 1941 were in complete disarray. This point cannot be emphasised strongly enough. The Red Army was simply not prepared to give battle with the Germans in 1941 (largely because Stalin refused to contemplate it). Stalin for example completely lost his nerve for several weeks in the autumn and the early summer - and the whole Soviet war effort was directionless as a result. The Red Army, even with good equipment, still lacked the ability to operate properly over the large areas presented to it. Command and control and logistics were simply not up to the job of fighting the Germans over such a huge front. And that is why so much of the 'old' army dissapeared in 1941. A tank is not a super car - you need a logistical train behind it to keep it fueled, armed and on the road. In the midst of the chaos of summer 1941 - the Soviets lost the abiltiy to keep ALL of their tank fleet under C&C and operational. OK, some armies when they were still fresh had tanks - but they were quickly chewed up. But the majority of their tank fleet ended up being abandoned by the crews. German propaganda portayed Russian tanks as being destroyed by stukas, artillery etc. but the reality most of the time was the tank breaking down or running out of fuel and the crews fleeing. At the end of the year the Soviets were pushing tanks straight from the factory to the front. Luckily for them, the Germans had reached the end of their tether too. (I believe some 33% of the original german force were casualties, and their supply train had bogged down in the mud). So to go on about tactics etc. in 1941 is to miss the point - the Russians were a sitting target for Germany, and luckily for them they had a lot of land to trade for time. The Red Army was seveerely hamstrung in every way by the Soviet leadership before the war, and the events of summer 1941 were the logical outcome of this. It was not until late 1942 that the Russian war effort was to be professionally managed. [ April 01, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

A bit more on those wonderful SMG's - this time from a German veteran : A bit rough on the Red Army soldier, but gives you an idea of what he thought of the PPsh... Oh, but of course - SMG's are the wonderful weapons of choice of WWII armies.

Ho ho ho (ROFL) An SMG firing to 200 metres in combat conditions. Keep it coming men, I am wiping the tears from my eyes

Good to see you back, Big D.

The opposite to pure drivel. You are Mr. Tittles, aren't you? </font>

No, the argument was about the quality of VG. Then it moved onto their equipment. My point is, SMG's are basically automatic pistols. They are not really that suitable as a standard infantry weapon. Accuracy, range, ammo expenditure, safety as a standard issue weapon etc. All of which point to issuing SMG's as a standard weapon for infantry right across the division as a bit of a 'make-do' bit of work. </font>

(sighs, flicks fluff off his sleeve)

You lot finished? What a load of rubbish - automatic pistols comparable to rifles. Do any of you know that an SMG actually is, and what is is designed for? Also, perhaps a history of Nazi Germany and it's situation in Winter 1944 may help you too. A sten hitting a target 300m away (ha ha ROL) As for being an idiot, perhaps you are talking about yourself? You do know that when we insult other people, we are often subconsciously talking about the parts of ourselves that we do not like? Where does that leave you? [ March 31, 2005, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

No, the argument was about the quality of VG. Then it moved onto their equipment. My point is, SMG's are basically automatic pistols. They are not really that suitable as a standard infantry weapon. Accuracy, range, ammo expenditure, safety as a standard issue weapon etc. All of which point to issuing SMG's as a standard weapon for infantry right across the division as a bit of a 'make-do' bit of work.

Is this a modern SMG? They have improved a lot since 1944. To compare a modern weapon with one designed in the '30's is a bit misleading. Modern SMG's such as the HK are excellent weapons for policemen and special forces. But they are a long way removed from a sten or MP40. The firing mechanism is the problem. For example, the Sten used a heavy spring to reload the weapon. Crude - but cheap to make (and simple to operate and maintain in the field). Such a crude mechanism meant in practice was that the gun would be jumping violently in your hand when firing a burst. Of course, with training you can minimise this (correct stance etc). But we are back to the same old argument now...

They all used the same flawed firing method - the Sten was a copy of a german design. The flawed firing mechanism made them very difficult to shoot accurately. And the 9mm cartridge gave the same limitations whatever the weapon. (.45 cal thompson was even more difficult because of the heavier round - therefore more recoil - more difficult to control). Hang on wasn't the PPsh firing roughly a .45 cal round too (by weight)? Maybe someone can fill me in on this - don't know off the top of my head.

You don't use full auto at longer ranges. </font>

So do I. People who were in the army and fired stens. They were trained to point the gun into houses and fire it - and that was about it. Not much other training on the sten really was needed.

All of these weapons use the blowback method of operation. (MP40, Suomi, Sten PPsh etc.) As such, they are very difficult to control, even uder firing range conditions. You have to use certain techniques whilst firing to counteract the tendency of the recoil to shift the barrel one way. For example, using the shoulder strap or placing a thumb on the back of the breech block. In combat (ie in practice), all of this technique goes out of the window. That is why a lot of soldiers said that you couldn't hit much with a Sten under combat conditions. The gun would constantly be shifting its aim every time you fired a bullet out of it. And then you get onto the dangers of automatic discharge, which is another subject entirely...

I suggest you learn about pistols and their capabilities. [ March 24, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

No contradiction - it is really three points here. (1) A high-velocity round from a full powered rifle causes a shock save to pass through the victim around the entry hole. This causes massive injuries. (2) A low-velocity round just drills a small hole. (3) The larger the hole, the more bleeding will occur because of the larger area. This is seperate from the 'shock wave' effect caused by high velocity rounds. (And in addition too it). In this way, there are three points, some of which can act in tandem and therefore with no contradiction. I remember someone on TV giving advice to travellers in countries that have poor security (Africe for example). The advice was (a) if someone points a pistol at you - don't panic unless they are very close - they probably won't hit you as pistols are too inaccurate and difficult to shoot accurately (unless you have a marksman shooting at you). ( if someone points a rifle at you - run - because they are trying to kill you. [ March 24, 2005, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

So the VG are sitting there in this situation twiddling their thumbs... Waiting for the tank to try and knock out a dug-in enemy with a single shell. They may have a long wait... I expect that you would have your arm nearly taken off with a full powered rifle. Without immiediate medical attention, yes you could die. A 9mm rouind will just put a hole there. You are getting carried away here. I don't know what you are trying to say here. Can you clarify? Who said bullets don't hurt? I didn't... Yes you do and they did then. Up to a point - other times you have do bite the bullet and defend unfavourable ground. That's where a SMG equipped squad would come to a bad end. Today yes, but 60 years ago no. Then they had to make do with rifles and HMGs for suppresion of the enemy at distance. Yes, sometimes they may have had a FAO, but a lot of the times they are on their own. Have you heard of suppresion and its effect on the movement of an enemy? Yes, but rifles are also good at laying down suppresive fire at distances, and do it very economically. An MG burns its ammo up in a short period of time. If you are in a forward position for a long time then you need single shot weapons. Agreed - but aren't we talking about SMG's? Don't we know they have an actual combat distance of 10m? Does that not make discussion of ranges to 400m a bit irrelevant? From what I have heard, recruits in the British Army were trained to use SMG's to clear out buildings. No other real value was placed on them. You would point the barrel around the corner and pull the trigger and use the entire clip. No point trying to aim the thing, because the bullets would anyway go everywhere (the barrel would be kicking all over the place). An alternative to using grenades...

The 7.92 is a lot longer - 3x maybe? somebody look this up If it were to hit bone and start tumbling - it would be very messy.... I expect the 7.92 round to also weigh more - someone like to look this up as well? So no contradiction there. There is a lot of difference between 9mm and 7.92 full size. Basically one you have to shoot someone with several times to ensure they go down. The other you shoot someone with once and it is the end of the story.

Low velocity round (which are all that tend to come out of hand guns / MP's) just produce a hole in the target. There is no surrounding tissue damage. Full powered rifles (or mid-powered ones as well) are much more powerful and produce a shock wave in the target that makes a mess of all the surrounding tissue. That is why you tend to die after being shot with a rifle, whereas with pistol ammo you can be patched up. A general rule of course, there are exceptions. Also, The larger the calibere, the bigger the hole and the more bleeding is another rule.