Counter techs are way too powerful.

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaWolf_48

Infantry can stop Tanks, if they have adequate anti-tank weapons. True in WWII, just like it is true today. What Infantry alone cannot stop is a properly conducted combined arms attack.

While it's true that armor in 'Nam was very effective, the terrain precluded it being widely used.

VC and NVA were formidable fighters and deserve a better term than the one you used for them.

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaMonkey

The use of precision weapons that started in '91 is in effect a new RMA. Just like the German Blitz was in '40. It will be interesting to see what "tech" people research to counter it.

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

I respect both of you gentelmen but must disagree. Aircraft destroyed 10's of 1000's of tanks. Just one of Germany's Luftwaffe pilots Capt. Rudel destroyed 518 tanks, 800 trucks, 150 A/A and A/T guns and the cruiser Marat in Leningrad. I don't think he dropped 414,400 bombs to destroy 518 tanks.

During Normandy more of the german tanks where destroyed by planes than tanks.

I don't know whether I'd agree that aircraft destroyed "10's of 1000's of tanks"; after all, Germany barely built tens of thousands of tanks (the most numerous model, the PzIV, only had a little over 8,000 produced of all versions during the six years of the war). I don't question that more German tanks were destroyed by aircraft than by Allied tanks on the Western Front, but that probably is more a testament to the woeful capabilities of Allied armor than to the prowess of Allied aircraft.

I know what you're saying, and I didn't mean to suggest that aircraft were of marginal significance. Obviously, they played a primary role; it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for the Western Allies to have achieved the success they did without overwhelming air superiority.

I do think, though, that the effectiveness of air power is overstated in this game, and that the effectiveness of armor is substantially understated.

[SeaWolf_48]

We all seem to agree about tanks and Air Power, the battlefield changed forever when the Nazi invaded Poland, Shock and Awe, Blitzkreig. We all seem to generalize a bit when we write these forum messages, I admit too it!

Dear Shaka give me some examples of infantry divisions stopping an Armored Division in history, not in a fortress.

Sorry to offend you about the dink comment, but I had two good friends killed by those little yellow bastards, and several were never the same after the war. This time in Iraq we did it right however, and let the Military run the show, awesome!

[SeaMonkey]

Please allow me "Dear Shaka"; off the top of my head but with mucho qualifications, please define (TO&E) "infantry" and "armored" divisions and I'll go with Webster on "fortress". How about US 99th (green) at Elsenborn vs 12 SS Hitler Jugend Dec. 16-20, 1944 B of the B. And yes, the US 2nd was attacking at the time through their lines.

[SeaWolf_48]

VERY GOOD, Seamonkey.

Off the top of my head, the 12SS HJ Pz Div was stopped at Elsenborn by the 99th 12 miles from their starting point, out of gas, and with no air cover in poor tank country with tanks to heavy for most bridges, and in the dead of winter, again not good tank weather. Allied fighter/bomber air support started on 25th. Try again!

[ April 10, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[SeaMonkey]

Whoops! My mistake, please define "stopping". SC = 50 miles per hex, 12 miles = 1/4 of hex, rounded that equals 0. See I knew there would be "mucho qualifications", should have remained silent, but boring day at work, the bosses are here.

[SeaWolf_48]

Fellow Sea person

This is fun, I hope you are having fun with this too. I'm not trying to argue, but just joust.

Using Germany in Dec 1944 is not a good example. The old men and little boys defense. Why don't you try Hoth's attack to relieve Stalingrad in Jan '43.

[ April 10, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[SeaMonkey]

Same here SW48, games are always fun, life's lighter side is for our enjoyment; seriously I have great respect for my fellow SC brethren. Now back to the jousting. I abdicate, I looked up "Fortress" = Fort = a fortified place; fortify = 1.to strenghthen by military defense 2.to give physical strength or endurance to 3. encourage. You are indeed correct, unsupported weak human beings without military defensive means are no match for fully supplied tanks operating on firm, flat, unobstructed ground under clear skies with air supremacy. I humbly withdraw my example, but I do reserve the right to use my google search engine and the Iraqi minister of information to continue the quest.

[SeaWolf_48]

Your a good monkey SeaMan, I mean your a good man Seamonkey.

LOL

[Shaka of Carthage]

Examples of Inf Div stopping Armor Div?

Specific examples will have to wait, since I don't have access to my sources at work.

WWII

Won't find much before '41, since the Inf Div's really didn't have enough anti-tank weapons.

France '40 there was a French Inf Div that stopped a German Panzer Div.

North Africa... Axis stopped the British Armored attacks couple of times. Believe it was done with the Italian infantry supported by German anti-tank units (88's). German armor units being reserved for the counter-attack.

Again in North Africa, when US invaded, US Inf units stopped German Armored units with towed and self-propelled anti-tank weapons, including the tank destroyers.

Hmmmm.... maybe we have a disconnect on what is considered a anti-tank weapon?

Lots of examples with German Inf divisions stopping Russian armored attacks. I'll have to find the specific examples.

Then you come to the '44 timeframe. US Inf Divisions stopped German armor divisions quite a few times.

Post WWII

Egyptian Inf (with Saggers) stopping Israeli armored attacks. Think that was the 70's.

[KDG]

I'm beginning to think I'd like to see multiple techs for every unit.

Ground units:

Tech 1: Increase soft attack

Tech 2: Increase soft defense

Tech 3: Increase air defense

Tech 4: Increase tank defense

Tech 5: Increase overall strength

Tank units:

Tech 6: Increase soft attacks

Tech 7: Increase tank attacks

Tech 8: Increase air defense

Tech 9: Increase soft defense

Tech 10: Increase overall strength

Jets:

Tech 11: Increase soft attacks

Tech 12: Increase tank attacks

Tech 13: Increase air attacks

Tech 14: Increase air defense

Tech 15: Increase overall strength

Same for the other units also.(I might include two increases for ships and subs to make investment in them worthwhile, maybe an attack and defense improvement).

Then I might make investment cost 100 MPP's, but only have a 5% chance for improvement each turn.

The increase could be 1/2 point to 1 point for each increase(maybe even make this random). Total techs available to invest in might be 20-25. I assume some of you war buffs could come up with nice little names that would describe each of the above techs.

I believe this would increase overall strategy, as well as bring in a bit more randomness.

Ex.

One side is investing in air defense when they find out that tanks are doing all the attacking. You quickly get some research into tank defense, but was it in time. Or your jets aren't doing any damage, so you change strategy and bump up you infantry attack, just in time to take key locations.

I'd like to see the occasional game(10% of the time maybe) where even when you played it perfectly, some random factors(like tech) kept you from winning.

[SeaWolf_48]

North Africa... Axis stopped the British Armored attacks couple of times. Believe it was done with the Italian infantry supported by German anti-tank units (88's). German armor units being reserved for the counter-attack.

Very true Shaka, I remember reading this in Knights Cross about Rommel. This was a rare time in tank history. The germans had found that their AA gun was even a better AT gun. This made the AT gun stronger than the armor. It however was eventually overcome by air power and overwelming tank numbers.

One of my weaknesses is speaking in generalities, but by and large tanks were rarely stopped by even good AT.

When tank divisions are up to strength, with addiquite armored infantry, and decient air power, and their tanks are atleast equal to the enemy (or their tactics are better, like the germans over the russians) tanks will always beat infantry. This is what the tacticians and military thinkers surmized before WW2. They didnot want too experience another WW1 stile warfare, and have the flower of their youth killed in the trenches. Well the tanks cured that and they killed the flower of their youth all over Europe instead of just in treches.

Reading reports of massed tank attacks against infantry is a fearfull thing too read, I'm glad I have never had to experience it, hell, I've only been shot at once and that was when I was Deer Hunting, and it's scary, oh ya and one other time Pheasant Hunting someone shot a shotgun at me, and that wasn't a tank. AT gunners, artillary observers, officers, and machine gunners were dead meat in WW2.

German and American tank tactics were based around the tank platoon of 5 tanks. These guys worked together to kill anything in their way. They were always looking out for eachother, you shoot one of them they kill you. Teamwork in death! At full strength American Tank Divisions had around 200 M4A1s and 100 M5A1s with 50 or so M10s all group together in three Regiments (CCA, CCB, CCR) in a small area. 350 tanks can break thru almost any division, and usually did. Same with the Germans and Russians. SC is not a good example of unit size, but most armies used the Armored Corps, three division, two armored and one motorized, to break thru on a very small front, then penetrate deep into enemy territory and destroy supplies, communications, and moral. My point is, no more WW1 fighting.

The greatest battles are when two tank armies face eachother. That is real destruction. To just say the word Kursk sends shivers down many historians and militia mens spines.

I know you know all this, I'm just thinking out loud. Funny how tankers interviewed during WW2 asked about living in tanks day after day, do you feel safe in there, they alway answer "yes". Then they said they feel sorry for the grunt on the ground. The foot slogger is asked about the tankers, "those poor bastards in those iron coffins". But today look at a modern army, mostly all armored, armored carriers of all kinds, with awesome tanks. Even Infantry Divisions today are really Panzergrenidier Divisions.

Well, got to go play golf, got to keep the handicap up, 10.6 now, was 9.1 but lost my drive for a while, it will come back hopefully. Maybe Davis Love III can win the Masters, Or Michelson, just not Tiger!

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaWolf_48

Don't mean to belabor the point, but there are a couple of misconceptions you mentioned that I would like to clear up.

Germans, Italians and Russians are the only one's who understood combined arms. US and British could never get the proper coordination or the correct doctrine.

Number of tanks is not important. Ever wonder why Rommel with so few tanks could achieve breakthroughs? US Armored divisions had too many tanks in them, but to the US, tanks were metal horses (ie cavalry). US never got it right in WWII. Didn't learn until after Israel taught them.

Tankers were correct about being in a safe place. Most tank losses were not because the tank was destroyed, rather it was disabled. Crew was still alive. Thats why so much confusion when people talk about how air "kills" a tank. Usually it has done nothing more than disable a track. Tank will be back in action the next day.

[JerseyJohn]

As a generalization, what we're really saying is this:

1939 & 1940 infantry units had very few effective anti-tank weapons. A year later that began changing and by 1943, as exemplified by the action at Kursk, armored units could no longer attack prepared infantry units without themselves having strong infantry support. In short, once defeloped it was cheaper to make basookas, panzerfausts and even Molotov coctails than it was to make tanks. What's the big mystery? Along the way anti-tank guns improved and so did ground attack aircraft capabilities as tank busters. A 1945 King Tiger may not have been that much more effective against 1945 infantry than a 1940 Pz IV was against 1940 infantry.

I know that may appear to be an unnecesary recap but it seems to me a simplified summary would help at this point. Love the topic but I feel like I'm missing something somewhere if it's really this complicated.

Also, I think we're tending to look at the subject through a limited range of weaponry. Even among armored vehicles, it was never only a matter of tanks vs Antitank guns. We're overlooking the mix of assault guns, tank destroyers and various other specialized armored vehicles that came to be developed and deployed during the course of the war.

Would a turretless tank destroyer be considered part of heavy tank development, or part of antitank gun development?

Shaka Good point about American Armor not understanding the basic premise. You're right. Fortunately the U. S. manufactured so many Shermans it hardly mattered, American factories churned them out as though they were skateboards!

SeaWolf Ironically, Rommel's use of 88s as antitank guns left him more vulnerable to air attacks. Give and take. I like your point about tanks rarely being stopped even by good AT; but as the war progressed I think the balance tended to lean toward defensive tactics when two comparably trained and equiped forces were opposed to each other. The deciding factor then became air supremacy.

[ April 11, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Would a turretless tank destroyer be considered part of heavy tank development, or part of antitank gun development?

Anti-Tank development.

Tank destroyer is nothing more than a Self-Propelled Anti-Tank gun.

[JerseyJohn]

Exactly, but with very heavy armor and on a tank's chasis. If it were only a self-propelled gun it could be mounted on a truck. What I'm getting at is much of the same experience that went into making effective tanks also went into making effective counters to those tanks.

This Thread has convinced me that as the war went on much more effort was put into countering tanks than was expended in making them more effective.

There's merit to the original point, that the techs may very well lean too far in the antitank direction, but it might not be as far as it at first appeared.

[ April 11, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

It's alot cheaper to produce a Tank Destroyer than it is a Tank. Towed anti-tank weapon is even cheaper.

You went for a gun big enough to hurt a tank, but usually put it on whatever chassis you had the most of. Most of the tank destroyers were the chassis of obsolete tanks with turrets removed.

Except for the US, which produced a dedicated tank destroyer from the ground up.

[arby]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

This Thread has convinced me that as the war went on much more effort was put into countering tanks than was expended in making them more effective.

Even assuming that's true -- and I don't think it is -- why do you think that was? I think the explanation is relatively simple: tanks were so far ahead of the weapons intended to stop them that far more effort had to go into developing those defensive weapons.

It's hard to fully appreciate just how revolutionary a concept the tank was. Warfare throughout the ages has been a construct struggle between the offense and defense. From the Civil War through World War I, the defensive was ascendant. The massed charges that formed the basis of Napoleonic tactics were made much more difficult by the advent of the rifled musket, and rendered completely obsolete by the repeating carbine, the machine gun, and barbed wire. And on the eve of WWII, everybody expected pretty much the same thing.

Except the Germans. The tank changed all that; the pendulum swung decisively in favor of the offense. We all know that the French and British tanks in 1940 were better than the German ones, but it was the Wehrmacht that developed and perfected the use of armor. And for two and a half years, they used that to run roughshod over the rest of Europe.

And again, I think your basic premise is incorrect. If you compare the early-war tanks to the late-war tanks of just about every country -- the PzII to the Tiger II for Germany, the M3 to the M4E8 "Jumbo" for the Americans, the T/34 to the IS-II for Russia -- the difference is huge.

[JerseyJohn]

Arby

Of course the difference is huge. I don't think you got the point of my basic premise. I said the tanks changed but the infantry also changed and the counter measures against tanks was much greater than the advances provided to tanks for fighting against infantry.

Early war infantry did not possess weapons such as bazookas and heavy calibre anti-tank guns. They had no techniques for stopping tanks and often the mere appearance of armor was enough in itself to route all but the bravest defenders. Later in the war, troops of minor powers, such as the Romanians, were consistently swept aside by armored attacks because they did not possess bazookas / panzerfausts or antitank guns.

Also, many of the tanks being used by Germany even at the end of the war, Pzr III & IVs were the same that they fought the opening campaigns with. What was different was, originally the Mk III had the armor piercing ordinance and it was not of a very high calibre, while the Mk IV had a short barrel low velocity gun designed to fire high explosives. After the French campaign this was understood to be a mistake. As the war progressed both tanks were revised on a regular basis but were the backbone of the German Armored units, fighting along side the heavy Tigers (PzV) and medium Panthers (PzVI) right up till the end of the war. There were also Pz Is and a lot of Pz IIs still in operation at the end of the war.

While this was going on, behind the lines, there were tank killer versions of those same tanks to fignt against enemy armor that broke through. In 1939, 1940 and even 1941 "Hunting" versions, or tank destroyers, did not exist.

We tend to see things in clear stages, an advance happens and all the units suddenly become up to date. That is never the case, especially where large percentages of an army are engaged in actual combat.

By the middle of the war ordinary front line infantry units possesed weapons which, if not powerful enough to knock out an attacking medium tank, were at least potent enough to knock off a track, renering the monster immobile till repairs could be performed. Infantry earlier in the war lacked even that ability.

As for my perception of these things, I think we all understand that tank design evolved during the course of the war, thank you.

Shaka

Interesting point. The U. S. seems to have used two of them, starting with the M-10 (built on a Sherman chassis) and replacing it with the M-18, which was a smaller target, faster and just as hardhitting. Both were much faster than regular tanks; the M-18 being the fastest tracked vehicle of World War Two.

American doctrine on these things seems to have been the opposite of Germany's. In effect the American tank destroyers sacrificed heavy armor for speed and a highly effective armor piercing weapon. I believe the American tank destroyers also employed turrets for their main weapon, a converted anti-aircraft gun.

German tank destroyers were much heavier, did not have the gun in a turret, and slower than their tank counterparts. In some cases, especially those put out in mid-war, they also tended to be underpowered.

But all these weapons had one thing in common, their primary function was to prevent enemy tanks from breaking through and running rampant behind the lines, in short, stopping blitzkrieg tactics dead in their tracks (no pun intended).

Unless I'm missing something, that, plus the development of bazookas plus the development of tank busting ground attack aircraft represents a huge advance of tank stopping weapons over breakthrough advances that were incorporated into the tanks themselves.

As the war went on tanks became more dependant upon infantry and antiaircraft support to function effectively. If that isn't an accepted fact then this whole thread is off in the twilight zone.

Link to Good Photos of the M-18 tank destroyer.

Link to a four part Article, with numerous photos, on Germany's Heaviest Tank Destroyer, the Hunting Tiger.

The second link is especially intersting because in addition to giving this weapon's considerable strong points, it also gives a detailed assessment of it's weaknesses. Essentially it was an assualt gun but with the additional obligation of having to aim at specific vehicle targets, for which the entire weapon had to be moved as it was turretless, causing extreme wear on the parts and numerous breakdowns.

[ April 12, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Jersey John

Nice posting, Your Cyber work is always enjoyable to read, and was much more enjoyed when you use to put in those wonderful pic's.

Let me try to conceptualize this hairball from my humble position. Could a June 1944 Panzer Division (either Allied or Axis) penetrate the enemy line to achieve it's objective.

Rommel tried to do it in Normandy but was stopped by overpowering Allied airpower, and near the shore Allied Naval guns. Could the allied infantry divisions stop them with their own a/t defense?

Russian Tank Armies in Jan 1944 in the Ukraine penetrated german infantry with some of the best a/t defense weapons in the world. Were they just understrength units or did superior masses tank presents (JS-1s,T-3485s) break thru as was done to the russians three years earlier?

Could Von Runsteadt stop the Weak American Sherman Tank M4A3 with 75mm and 88mm a/t guns(usally no more than one battalion per division- 24 to 36 guns) during op. Cobra?

If the massed tank concept (Modern day Armored Division, first introduced in 1939) developed by Guderian and Hoth, perfected by Rommel and Weist, didn't work in 1944 because a/t guns or a/t doctrine and had become so powerfull, then all Armored divisions would have reverted to 1940 Tank Heavy French Infantry Divisions and war would have reverted to WW1 stile attrition, which it didn't. Armored Divisions were the tip of the spear, then and now! As we all know Armored Divisions evolved with special armored troops to travel with them to neutralize a/t defenses.

I know it won't change, but SC should have L5 tanks (except Italy, L2 maybe), and L3 infantry. Airpower, Naval power and city/fortresses should be the only other force that should stop Panzers. This is ignoring Elite infantry such as Rangers, Commando's, SS and Soviet Guards potentials.

There I'm done, I will joust no more on this subject. This armchair general is pooped, all reserves deployed, the imperial guard dead, the paratroopers wiped out in Arnhem, dead burned out Tigers litter the battlefield, and smoking twisted a/t guns with their barrels pointing to the sky.

Maybe....

[Liam]

I'm in one of my simulators right now testing Fall of France like tanks. It seems the Panzer III-H<only equal gunnery platform for the Axis and still lacking> is the heaviest and slowest tank available and I doubt in history there were significant numbers. However CAN WE ARGUE, being that we take history in our own hands. That France and Britian both enter the war with as much as 3-4 months to prepare for Fall Gelb...that they can employ a large # of their own heavy and adaquete armor? They had it just not aligned for this type of warfare and does this game allow the revesre of German Blitzkrieg? Or, is it assumed by Poland that it's too late for the Allies to prepare for it?

The French and the British are amazing tankers, though they're slow and less #s is all... I find in my simulator it's pure death without anti-tank artillery and several Panzers outflanking one of theirs superior Mattys/Chars... Some of their tanks are so powerful that unless hit in small specific places they're impossible to defeat without an 88 at gun...

[JerseyJohn]

"There I'm done, I will joust no more on this subject. This armchair general is pooped, all reserves deployed, the imperial guard dead, the paratroopers wiped out in Arnhem, dead burned out Tigers litter the battlefield, and smoking twisted a/t guns with their barrels pointing to the sky.

Maybe...." -- SeaWolf

Great Stuff SW.

Originally I wrote a reply to this around ten hours ago but accidentally deleted it when I tried pasting a couple of photos, so I guess you're right, I've definitely gotten out of practice when it comes to inserting images. Actually, I've been pasting them but on a much more modest basis than I used to. Moon says they're a drain on the system when done too often so now I try to exercise moderation. Instead I've been posting links via URL that usually contain the photos I would otherwise have put up using the image function. The two I linked in the last posting contained something like 35 photos!

Still, I have to agree having a couple of photos or other illustrations, especially in with large blocks of print, does make it easier on the eyes.

I'll try to add more without going overboard.

Regarding this topic, I agree that the subject is pretty well exhausted.

I agree with Arby's earlier point that the initial use of armor in 1939 and 1940 was so revolutionary that nobody really understood how to deal with it. But even at that time the full effect of an armored breakthrough couldn't be realized without at least local air supremacy.

During the period when Blitzkrieg was master of the field, Germany didn't only know the most about tank tactics, they also knew the most about anti-tank guns and tactics. In North Africa Rommel's favorite tactic wasn't the those used in standard blitzkrieg but the fighting withdrawl behind his own lines of anti-tank batteries, giving him a number of unlikely victories where his few tanks inexplicably triumphed over vastly larger British Armored formations.

Guderian, leading his Panzer Group in France, 1940, relied heavily on close ground support from the Luftwaffe. I think maintaining a successful Blitzkrieg depended as much upon air cover and support as it did upon mobility and the force of an armored punch. The combined effect was to disorient defenders and keep them off balance.

In the 1940 Campaign French commanders consistenly sent troops to defend areas that had already been overrun. Air supremacy also helped keep the rear areas secure and the French counterattack against Rommel's Seventh Panzer Division, for example, though tactically successful ultimately failed because Luftwaffe interdiction kept the counterattack isolated from other units that might have been brought up as reinforcements.

As the war progressed I think the natural result was a tactical revolution where Germany's enemies, even if they couldn't duplicate the German blitzkrieg technique, at least learned what countermeasures needed to be taken to prevent the wild breakthroughs of Poland, France and the first summer of Barbarossa.

The Father of it All, Hurrying Heinz Guderian issueing orders from a command vehicle.

[ April 15, 2003, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I'll try to add more without going overboard.

Well... you DID make it for a whole eleven lines before the "urge" struck you again, that's pretty good!

For myself, I don't really need to have pictures... I remember listening to baseball games in the 50s as a kid, and the one great thing about it was... you were required to make up your OWN pictures... somehow that was much more fun than having them supplied by a TV editor.

[JerseyJohn]

"Well... you DID make it for a whole eleven lines before the "urge" struck you again, that's pretty good!"

No Immer, it wasn't a whole 11 lines, actually I made it for a whole THOUSAND POSTINGS before the urge hit me to resume pasting pictures, and that was at the request of others who enjoyed the photos. I happen to enjoy them myself. If you don't then nobody is saying you have to look at them, so what's your point?

"For myself, I don't really need to have pictures... I remember listening to baseball games in the 50s as a kid, and the one great thing about it was... you were required to make up your OWN pictures... somehow that was much more fun than having them supplied by a TV editor."

Yeah, I grew up in the fifties myself. So what? Photographs were over a century old, we had talking movies, many of which were in color and television was very popular. I remember it as a time when the big hits were upbeat, somewhat simple minded novelty songs like "You've got to accentuate the Positive . . ." which actaully came out in the forties but would have been right at home in the mid-fifties.

Speaking of which, is it my imagination or are you in some sort of negative frame of mind lately? It's beginning to seem as though every third or fourth posting I make lately has you quoting the most meaningless statement, highlighting it and making it into an issue in the most antagonistic way. Excuse me if I'm so unimaginative that I need to paste an occasional photograph -- I didn't realize it was so offensive either to you or anyone else. What's the problem? Whatever it is I'm really tired of it.

Regarding your earlier point, visualization was no more a necessity in the fifties than it is today. Perhaps people needed a good imagination to see things in the 1850s, but not when either of us were growing up. As for baseball games, they still broadcast them on the radio if that's your preference.

I miss the old Immer Etwas. He had positive ideas and witty poems and he was someone I liked and respected. This other character, the condescending overly cynical guy with all this uncalled for negative feedback, I don't know where he came from but I sure wish he'd go back there.

As for the fifties, it was not a Golden Age in any respect. We still had segregation, open bigotry, people running around screaming "Better Dead than Red" at the drop of a hat, a deceitful government that was busy backing special interests and obscure dictators in the name of freedom and making mistakes we're still paying for half a century later. We also had basic calculators being billed as super computers that filled large rooms, cost a million bucks, and broke down several times a day doing calculations for insurance companies and the census beaurea. You really feel nostalgia for those bad old days?

The only thing I miss about the fifties is my childhood. Which, incidentally, was filled with visions of the US and USSR destroying each other and the rest of the world too. Man, I had no problem visualizing that and didn't need any damn pictures to help me!

[ April 16, 2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]