Magpie_Oz

I seem to think the PSW (222) was "Open Up" 'ed ? "Hatch Opened" ? Is a PSW 222 able to fire if it is opened up? I recall something about this from ASL days because it was a 1 or 2 man turret or something.

It's a good read, has some informed comment on the supposed " British Disasters of Caen "

Oh ...... I thought this was a portrait of his "special chums" playing leather man dwess-ups

Yeh, I am reading that one atm in eBook form.

Odd Job is whom you are thinking of. Was it Pussy Galore or Alotta Fagina ?

"I have a Pegasus Bridge book as well but cannot remember who the author is, don't think it is Ambrose." "Ambrose did write a book on PB. Yes I know but I don't think that is the one I have. The book is in my bookshelf, unfortunately the shelf is 5000klm away atm." See all I said was I had to check my facts, my rep is clear !

What do you mean ?

Yes I agree, that is why I was saying the victors write the history. I have to say I find it difficult to believe that any commander would be silly enough to issue a written no prisoners order. Sure it may have been mentioned verbally but officially I don't think so. Reading through a lot of the references relating to the issue there are a great deal of neo-nazi writers on the subject and any that aren't are accused of being neo-nazis so I guess we will never truly know. I am sure surrendering soldiers were shot on the battlefield or not long after they had been taken captive by emotionally charged men , but I can't imagine any soldier in the Western Armies executing another in cold blood, perhaps that is naive.

Ok, home now and it is the Ambrose book.

From the Wiki on Allied War Crimes: "In the aftermath of the Malmedy massacre a written order from the HQ of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, dated December 21, 1944, stated: No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight.[38] Major-General Raymond Hufft (U.S. Army) gave instructions to his troops not to take prisoners when they crossed the Rhine in 1945. "After the war, when he reflected on the war crimes he authorized, he admitted, 'if the Germans had won, I would have been on trial at Nuremberg instead of them.'"[39] Stephen Ambrose related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up."[40] Near the French village of Audouville-la-Hubert, 30 German Wehrmacht prisoners were massacred by U.S. paratroopers " Always hard to know what really happened, as they say the victors write the history.

With due deference to Chris Ellis of who's many works adorn my shelves even he is secondary to the Oxford English Dictionary for meanings of words http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mantle?rskey=vhsKsI&result=2 http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mantlet I do note that Mantlet can be used interchangeably for the coat meaning but not the shield meaning. I also note that Mantle can be taken to be a covering of a specific sort which is probably where the confusion arises.

Are you wanting to put in an offer Mick ?

The movie itself portrays the fight between the US and Germans in 1944. That is the end of its historical accuracy, even the name is utterly wrong because "The Battle of the Bulge" was really the Patton/Monty offensive that took place after the German offensive had created the Bulge, which is not really covered in the movie.

Von Clausewitz defines the term as one that: "Denotes properly such a portion of the space over which war prevails as has its boundaries protected, and thus possesses a kind of independence. " So that means that Theatres are non-contiguous, or put simply a theatre of war is surrounded by areas that war is not taking place, kinda. So by that definition it is going to change year by year but in general you might say : Eastern Europe and Western Europe (either side of Germany), North Africa (Morocco to Egypt), Middle East (Egypt to Persia), Africa (various fights in French territories and Madagascar), Mediterranean (Greece, Italy etc) , China, "South" Pacific or just Pacific (because of American Command : Hawaii to PNG and Phillipines), South East Asia (because of British Command: Borneo to India) separate Naval theatre for The Atlantic Air war Theatres being determined by their bases? Questions 1. you were wiki'ing L.Ron Hubbard because ........ ??????? !!!!!!! 2. How do I get my wife interested in such debates? (She only wants me for my body atm)

Millisecond for me, I live life to the fullest !

Because at last they had a gun that could fire decent HE and attack the anti-tank guns that were their greatest threat from beyond their effective range. OK France 1940: PzIII Ausf H : 37mm gun 31mm @ 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h Pz IV Ausf E : Short 75mm Gun 39mm @ 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h A13 : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m , 30mm Armour, 48Km/h Matlida II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m, 78mm Armour, 26km/h Char B1 Bis: 47mm Gun 60mm @ 500m, 60mm Armour, 25 km/h Somua S35: 47mm Gun 60mm @ 500m, 47mm Armour, 40km/h The German tanks of 1940 could not penetrate ,or only just penetrate, the front of their enemies nor resist the return fire. In the desert then in 1941: PzIII Ausf H : short 50mm gun 47mm at 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h Pz IV Ausf E : Short 75mm Gun 39mm @ 500m, 50mm armour, 40km/h Crusader II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m , 49mm Armour, 42Km/h Matlida II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m, 78mm Armour, 26km/h Still no joy in 1941. End of '41 - things change dramatically.

"A gun mantlet is an armour plate or shield attached to an armoured fighting vehicle's main gun ....." "A mantle (from mantellum, the Latin term for a cloak) is a type of loose garment usually worn over indoor clothing to serve the same purpose as an overcoat."

MANTLET it is a very different thing to a mantle But you are 100%, through-out it's life the armour of the Churchill met or exceeded even the Tiger I.

Unless you are in the jungles of Papua Nu Guinea where the Sherman does not have sufficient mobility, not enough armour and is too fast, or it is snowing and you need the wider tracks of the T34 or the PzIV in Normandy where armour was the primary threat or you only have diesel fuel available or or or or or The Sherman is a good tank for sure and remained so through out it's life as were the others. Best tank? never. no such thing.

Yeh, I said the same thing about digital cameras........

"Very little went as planned during the landing at Omaha Beach. Difficulties in navigation caused the majority of landing craft to miss their targets throughout the day. The defenses were unexpectedly strong, and inflicted heavy casualties on landing US troops. Under heavy fire, the engineers struggled to clear the beach obstacles; later landings bunched up around the few channels that were cleared. Weakened by the casualties taken just in landing, the surviving assault troops could not clear the heavily defended exits off the beach. This caused further problems and consequent delays for later landings." Not sure that there was ever an intent to crater the beach, that would have impeded the tanks. The failure of the tanks to arrive did cause major dramas but it was a litany of errors and bad luck that brought the landing unstuck.

I for one would like to see the AI develeoped to the extent where all you need to do is order an HQ to move to an area and perform an action, eg move to that hill and defend and the AI be smart enough to do that, rather than having to micromanage everything. We are a fair way off this tho' I think.

The arty boys had another appointment? Which sounds silly but what I mean is that if you have not achieved you objective within the required time frame then perhaps the supporting assets are no longer available to you as they have other tasks ?

But you WOULD write off a tank liberally if you wanted to be sneaky and get more than your fair share of replacements. So you maybe we should consider that the high "losses" were actually "on the books" losses to garner more replacements so they could keep up their tempo of ops. The US built 17k + armoured vehicles in 1944, can't see that ever creating a shortage of replacements especially since the German U-boats had lost the Battle for the Atlantic by that time, I think traffic jams were more of a problem.

True enough but that is doctrine raising its ugly head because they were supposed to use the MG's against infantry/ATG's