Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/23/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Well, it's a little more complicated than that. But the count down for the war obviously begins in Moscow at the end of August 1939, where Ribbentrop and Molotov sign the Pact dividing Poland. Wehrmacht invades in a week, RKKA follows in over three weeks after the declaration of war against Hitler by UK and France. Poland is gobbled up; RKKA attacks Finland at the end of November. It does not go smoothly, but by March the Finns begin to wear down and in all probability Stalin stops short to avoid direct confrontation with western powers, while still being a de facto and de jure Hitler's ally - yet publicly complaining about the lack of fighting in "the phoney war". By mid-summer 1940, Wehrmacht defeats the French and the British on the continent, and Stalin invades Bessarabia and Bukovina (thus violating the Moscow Pact and advancing its tanks within a striking distance from Ploesti oil fields critical for Wehrmacht). Hitler abandons his plans to invade the British islands; RKKA General Staff begins drafting its "Considerations for Strategic Deployment Plan" against Wehrmacht (the first known version of this plan is dated September 1940). In November, Molotov flies to Berlin and annoys Hitler with territorial demands. Shortly after he leaves, Hitler issues Directive 21 (aka Plan Barbarossa) outlining the invasion of the USSR. For several days in December, RKKA General Staff conducts "war games" clearly aimed at Wehrmacht. Deployment race is on, with RKKA overwhelmingly superior in the number of assets, by the way. By all indications, Wehrmacht's invasion in June takes RKKA General Staff by surprise - not because of Stalin being delusional, as many in the western academia like to pontificate - but simply as a result of believing that Wehrmacht is behind in the deployment count. And why would they believe otherwise, when the "feared" panzer force contained less than 4 thousand tanks against over 10 thousand RKKA tanks in the theater? Now, whether or not the effect of the first strike was crucial, in just weeks, RKKA suffered from catastrophic loss of command and control.
  2. 1 point
    Hello Mr Leonard , I am a bit confused , I was told that there was a reply to my comment in which I pointed out the same lug nut as you did . Has someone deleted a post or some other thing I missed ? I have not taken offence or even a wall or gate or some other property boundary . Which reminds me , did you know that the long lost President Idi Amin , when asked what he was going to do about defence replied "De man comin' wid de hammer and nails to fix it"
  3. 1 point
    Whoa there big fella. Easy now. It is always best not to take offense unless and until it is well, truly, and pointedly offered. I was referring to the lug nut who wrote the headline for the article in "Army Times," above.
  4. 1 point
    To quote yourself , it's all down to semantics , and I might add also , spelling , unless you actually meant "perogative" . I note that you remain silent about the word "earned" in the caption of the picture wot i scent , shurely you can come up wiv sumfink .
  5. 1 point
    The rationale of the Defiant was that it could fly faster then the typical bomber of the time, and could fly alongside and rake the (UNescorted) bomber from end to end with fire from the bank of 4 machine guns.Note the difficulty with which the Luftwaffe had in providing escort fighters even in the South Eastern corner of the UK: bomber raids on the East and the North would - of necessity - have been unescorted. The Germans didn't have any fighters that could reach (for example) Manchester.They likewise found Bristol a stretch. During the Battle of France (which immediately preceded the Battle of Britain) Defiants did pretty well. NOT just (as often claimed) by being mistaken for Hurricanes by BF109's which tried to dive on them from behind - right into the turret's kill zone) The first squadron to be kitted out with Defiants had the time to explore the best way to use them. Briefly, they held the record as the single most effective squadron in the RAF, mainly by blasting Ju87 Stukas out of the sky. A second squadron was established, but at a time when the initial squadron didn't have the opportunity to pass-on their knowledge or experiences, and at a time when the RAF was DESPERATE for fighters. They were badly misused. During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe attempted to attack using bombers from a Luftflotte stationed in Holland and attacking - unescorted - across the North Sea. Perfect targets for the Defiants, but instead attacked by Hurricanes and Spitfires, because the mis-used Defiants had already been withdrawn from the fight. Hard to nominate the plane that held the record (however briefly) as "the most successful shooter-down of bombers" in the RAF as "The WORST plane of WW2". It was a GOOD plane, put to the wrong use in a time of crisis.
  6. 1 point
    What we now call PTSD has probably been around since the beginning of organized warfare. In American terms, during the Civil War it was called Soldier's Heart or Nostalgia. World War one it became Shell Shock, World War Two called it Combat Fatigue. For my generation at first it was called Post Vietnam Syndrome and then PTSD. As it was explained to me during my treatment, PTSD is a normal reaction to abnormal circumstances. Once I quit drinking, and I never took the drugs the VA offered, my head gradually cleared with the passage of time. Today I prefer to only associate with fellow veterans, as a member of AmVets, VFW, American Legion, and Vietnam Veterans of America. I do not have any "civilian" friends. By the way, the new "politically correct" designation is PTS. They no longer want to say we are disordered. As if we are flippin' snowflakes that might suffer damage at a word.
  7. 1 point
    The battle of Stalingrad? What phase of it are you referring to? The Operation Uranus in 1943 was executed by a completely different Red Army (from top to bottom) than that holding the line on the west bank of Volga in 1942. Why don't you give us a pertinent example, void of conflations and misnomers? Like, an army of comparable size mobilized and maintained in concentrated pockets for more than several weeks on end in what formally was peace time? Granted, it would be hard to do, because not once in history - before or after - an army of this size with so much stuff in it ever existed. But I find the way you go about debating this particular subject very interesting in that you ignore the factual content - like the actual Plan that is now out in public domain for all to see - and rush to debate hypotheticals. That's not a stance of somebody interested in getting to the bottom of anything, but rather somebody who has a stake in defending a position at all cost.
  8. 1 point
    What's remarkable about such plans? In WW1 the French military had detailed plans, that in case of a war with Germany they would strike against Alsac-Lorraine. So what? That France was going to attack Germany before the Kaiser attacked France?? The USA had attack plans against Great Britain as late as the early 1920s. So what? That the US miltary was on the brink of declaring war against the Brits? Every nation has war plans against other nations. That's only common sense.
  9. 1 point
    My latest video is about the Battle for Arnhem, specifically the reconnaissance squadrons mission to capture the bridge at Arnhem "by Thunderclap surprise" with their jeeps. Contrary to popular myths, their jeeps did arrive and they started on their mission confident that they would be at the bridge within an hour. Unfortunately, they started late which gave the Germans time to establish a roadblock which ended the mission less than 2 miles from where they started. In this video, we follow the men from the landing zone to the railway underpass near Wolfheze, the location of the ambush. Then we will look at the Germans; why were the Germans able to put up a roadblock so close to the landing zones so quickly? Why were they there? It is my longest video to date and one I put in a lot of time and effort to research, write, film and edit, I hope you will enjoy it! If you like my videos, please subscribe today! https://www.youtube.com/c/TheBattlefieldExplorer?sub_confirmation=1
  10. 1 point
    In WWII subs were not used to hunt other subs, the technology to detect submarines underwater didn't exist then. With regards to the ice pack, in WWII subs spent very little time underwater, they had small batteries that needed frequent charging. Going under the ice pack would be suicide.