A cartoon
-
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb
Ground troops don't work without artillery, not for about 100 years. It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
In your typical open conflict perhaps, but artilery stops bombardments when troops are tangled up in urban street conflicts - they should simply deploy ground forces (supported by tanks, apcs and general mechanised infantry - i have no problem with that) and sweep building, bunkers and genenrally make their presense felt... ... ... on the ground
Ryan Roberts wrote:
It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible
Even if that means killing innocents?????
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
asshole
Dont you mean arsehole? *gets ready for flames*
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Churchill
Churchill is one of the main reasons a vast mojority of europe isnt speaking german right now. I think a little kudos is in order - a waring PM when we clearly needed one.
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Dont you mean arsehole?
Yep, I'm getting far to mid atlantic lately :)
Ian Harrigan wrote:
I think a little kudos is in order - a waring PM when we clearly needed one.
Was sort of my point.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
In your typical open conflict perhaps, but artilery stops bombardments when troops are tangled up in urban street conflicts - they should simply deploy ground forces (supported by tanks, apcs and general mechanised infantry - i have no problem with that) and sweep building, bunkers and genenrally make their presense felt... ... ... on the ground
Ryan Roberts wrote:
It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible
Even if that means killing innocents?????
"He who only hopes is forced to spend his life in the dark"
Ian Harrigan wrote:
on the ground
Read what happened in the first Chechnya war. Huge mechanised force was sent into Grozny and was decimated by cheap RPG's and demo charges deployed from buildings.
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Even if that means killing innocents
The lives of soldiers have to be more important to a commander than potentially hostile civilians, yes. That's not the same thing as machine gunning crowds and deliberately bombing hospitals though.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Today - in this point you are right - Europe isn't really anti-semetic, except for some (and I hope very view) never learning idiots.
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
For fucks sake, the reason they didn't have any of that stuff is because we were bombing the crap out of them.
Did you ever saw a documentation about the German industry? They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Do you think if we had committed ourselves to a policy of never harming civilianz that Hitler would have hesitated to put all of his resources squarely behind civilians?
The most factories weren't hided behind civilians and just a few were hitten (is that the correct form of hit?). The most were functional until the allies came and overtook them. Second point: in the most factories prisoners were working not Germans because Germany hadn't enough workers. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Why?
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
ihoecken wrote:
They had even nearly no resources before D-Day or bombing runs. The most tanks and plans couldn't be finished in production from 1942 on and there were problems even before.
Why?
Thank God for disproportional force.
- Germany hadn't own resources. They weren't able to get more resources from outside, but they needed more: more tanks and planes means more fuel, but there wasn't more. In the year 1942 the fuel problem were so great, that they weren't able to produce any more agricultural machines. So they needed more workers in agriculture. 2) They hadn't any more well trained pilots after the new types dropped sometimes without beeing shot. So for many types there were more crashes because of defects then firings. 3) Because of the huge region Germany tried to hold, every man were in army and even young boys were drafted. So Germany hadn't enough workers. 4) While they used more and more prisoners, the rate of failure increased. Especially for the high-tech machines - because it was easy to sabotage them without being caught and hard to find the failures at all. So in 1942 the army had a lot of tanks and planes without engines. In 1943 some types of planes and tanks had more exemplars without machines than with. 5) Germany had conquered a lot of russian tanks, but they weren't able to use them because they couldn't repair them - no sources, not enough mechanics. 6) The German tanks were so heavy that they used so much fuel that most tanks have to been given up in comparison to those, which were destroyed by the allies. 7) In the beginning of 1942, the production were reduced more and more, because Germany wasn't able to produce enough steel. By the way, the biggest and most important factories were build under some mountains (a huge one is near where I live) or even build in concetration camps. Hitler didn't build much in towns, because he feared the destruction, so he tried to build them, where they couldn't been found. But of course some were in towns and even Dresden had some, I won't deny that, but the problems began long before the bombrun started. I don't know if it was last week or the week before, a BBC documentation dealed with those problems. If they a right, well I said the truth. And it wasn't the only documentation I saw about the lack of resources, it was told in school and i read it in books (and not only in German ones). Regards, Ingo -- modified at 12:16 Wednesday 26th July, 2006: Added: By the way. I want to say that I'm not blame the allies - I can understand the reaction, but I wanted to add some facts.
-
Ian Harrigan wrote:
Maybe if we started commiting ground troops are a rule of thumb
Ground troops don't work without artillery, not for about 100 years. It is any commanders duty to spare the lives of his soldiers if possible.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
Damn - I didn't know that. That damn Westmorland had my little skinny scared ass in the boonies far beyond our arty. Hell we were calling in support from the Navy carriers. Mostly fast movers carring napalm and willy pete. Can't see them so just burn them out. Well in all honesty I was in Nam early (65-67). part of our job was to help build and support fire bases ( arty sites) for when the major ground offenses commenced. You are right - no decent ground commander will place his troops outside of arty cover. Its just too damn dangerous. Richard
Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Ground troops don't work without artillery
Damn - I didn't know that. That damn Westmorland had my little skinny scared ass in the boonies far beyond our arty. Hell we were calling in support from the Navy carriers. Mostly fast movers carring napalm and willy pete. Can't see them so just burn them out. Well in all honesty I was in Nam early (65-67). part of our job was to help build and support fire bases ( arty sites) for when the major ground offenses commenced. You are right - no decent ground commander will place his troops outside of arty cover. Its just too damn dangerous. Richard
Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Now I feel bad for my armchair general ranting. At least it was vaguely accurate though.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
I have no solution, Im just saying that what they do is _not_ the solution. Eg if you have prostate cancer, i can tell you not to use steroids because it will only get worse, still , I cant cure cancer.. its the same thing...
Not sure why this got two 1 votes. I'd say it's the most intelligent SB post of the last few days. I'm sick of pointing out that people's view of this situation is very one dimensional, only to be derided because I have no easy solution to offer.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Very well put. Problem is it won't matter what Israel does the anti-Semites will always find fault. Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance. Nothing will ever change so we're wasting our breath and energy to try to persaude people whose minds are closed. It might be better (for whatever reason) in the US but Europe is now and always has been rife with anti-semitism and as Europe slides inexroably towards becoming a muslim state it will only get worse. The strange thing is I think most people see it but no one will do anything about it. Now, fat_punk, that is bizarre and it's happening now.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
Problem is it won't matter what Israel does the anti-Semites will always find fault. Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance.
The problem, perhaps, is that for some people, any criticism of Israel is immediately anti-Semitic, which is just plain pathetic and weak.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog