Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Jon M Brown

Private
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jon M Brown last won the day on April 19 2018

Jon M Brown had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the best advice anyone could give is that there are no shortcuts. Reading is by far the best way to learn about history. Good documentaries are a nice supplement but these days you have to be very careful about knowing where the documentary came from. There are many online which are nothing more than propaganda.
  2. Like most of you I'm sure, I watch just about every history documentary I come across. And often times, in the midst of watching a question will pop into my head. I usually pull out my phone and do a quick google search and that satisfies my curiosity...most of the time. One question that I have asked a few times but never found a definitive answer is this; Exactly how many troops, reserves or trainees were in the United States toward the end of WWII? I ask this because I have read a number of accounts of Eisenhower requesting and being denied reinforcements for the push into Germany, not long before the Ardennes offensive. I don't recall exactly how many divisions he asked for but it was substantial. So that made me wonder why he was refused and were the troops even available in the first place?
  3. Hey guys...I'm not sure whether I am familiar with the film you are discussing but it sounds a lot like the little "dance" he did in one of Eva Braun's home movies. That has been shown millions of times and has been edited (forward & reversed to lengthen) quite often. But that was taken at the Berchtesgaden residence and I am absolutely certain that it is legitimate.
  4. I've been doing some reading lately on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and something keeps coming up in my mind. Didn't ANYONE in the U.S. government or military at some point say "Hey, these guys (Afghan insurgents/Mujahadeen or whatever) are NOT our friends!"? I would think that someone with a little common sense and a little forethought would probably come up with some pretty serious reservations. But does anyone know of anything specific?
  5. In the interest of being honest, I have to say up front that I have been critical of some of the "what if" posts that I've read on this forum. My main complaint with respect to such posts is the usually involve making assumptions that are in no way reasonable. So now that I have that out of the way.... What if George S. Patton had not been killed in a car accident in Europe? Would he have gone to Korea at some point? And if he had, could he have secured a victory for the U.N. forces? It's a fascinating hypothetical for a number of reasons. As good a commander as he was, one knock on him was that he didn't have an appreciation for logistics. And in Korea, he likely would have faced issues with logistics that he did not during WWII. Also, he was a hard driving commander, always aggressive and always on the attack. How would that kind of thinking worked in Korea? Especially at times when the U.N. was vulnerable? Anyway, just something to think about, especially for all you "what if" fans out there
  6. Definitely a piece of military history that tends to be forgotten because of the end result of the war. Had the U.N. gone on to push the communists out of Korea entirely, I imagine MacArthur's maneuver at Inchon would be listed among the most significant military operations of all time.
  7. Ed, I'm a little confused about the wording of you question. Are you trying to say that the Chinese worked toward a stalemate, rather than helping the communist North win??? If that's the case, I have no idea where that information would have come from because under any circumstance I could imagine, there would be nothing for the Chinese to gain. If you are asking about involvement in the war period, there is ample evidence that both the Chinese and Russians were involved in the war. If you are talking about PRIOR to the Chinese crossing the Yalu river, that's a little trickier but there is still no doubt that they assisted the North Koreans. As far as the Russians are concerned, if I'm correct I think they gave them equipment, trained their pilots and then a little later, their pilots actually flew combat missions against the U.N. But I don't think they had any troops on the ground like the Chinese did. If you clarify what it is you want to know, I might be able to either help or point you to where you can find more detailed information.
  8. Interesting points... Lately I've found myself a little frustrated at the Russian's portrayal historically too. I mean how in the world can people accuse the American's of being "evil" and "totally self serving" when taking into consideration Isreal??? If the American's really were totally self serving and did not at all care about right and wrong, surely it would make more sense to side with the Arabs and thereby possibly helping secure better access to oil reserves etc. The damn Russian's are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for their siding and arming the Arabs in wars they KNEW could result in the extermination of the Jews and the Jewish state! How could they have done that after what they saw during the war? And then they gave tanks to Egypt and Syria because they were dying to see how they would preform against the NATO tanks? Talk about selfish and heartless....
  9. Has anyone see this? I've watched the 4 episodes over the past couple of days, found it somewhat enjoyable but not without major flaws. My main gripe is with the narration. It happened to be a female but that's not the problem, she was droning, boring and was obviously reading a script. As a person who has done voice-over work and commentating, I feel like I can say that. It bothers me to think that she may have been given the position because she is a female and NOT because she was the best person available. I've heard plenty of excellent female narrators by the way but this person made watching the series more difficult and far less enjoyable. As for the content itself, it wasn't bad but they spent more time talking about politics and events in history without making a strong connection to tanks and tank history and not enough time talking about the tanks themselves. I also noted a couple of rather dubious statements, not the least of which was "the mightiest of the allied armies at the end of WWII was the Soviets". Largest? Perhaps...but in no way shape or form were they the "mightiest". Anyway, I'm interested to know if anyone else has seen it and what thoughts do you have?
  10. I just watched a cool documentary on the Smithsonian channel about the f-22 Raptor. At one point, they state that the plane has about the same radar return as a bumblebee. As impressive as that is, surely no bumblebee flies at the altitudes and at the speed of this plane. So my question is, why is Stealth so effective? Why can't radar's be modified to focus on smaller objects that could not be birds or insects, due to their altitude, heading and speed???
  11. I'm not sure if it boils down to that but it might very well. At the start of the war, France did indeed have a larger army and more equipment (tanks, artillery) but no one was prepared for the new tactics and the speed of the German movements. As to your question specifically, hopefully one of our better informed members can help.
  12. From everything I've ever seen or read, I have to say this and it has to be the greatest compliment a plane can get. If I were any soldier on the ground, be it infantry or special ops that plane would be my absolute favourite.
  13. As a writer, I think it's a very valid point. However, I'm not sure how I feel about the term "awarded". If we take into consideration the modern use of the word and it's actual definition, it can easily be taken to mean the actual process of presenting something that is due. In that respect, I don't think it has the quite the same connotation as "win". Having said that, it can be understood to mean the presentation of a "prize" which the original poster is objecting to. I definitely understand and agree with ceasing to use the term "win" when speaking of the Medal of Honor but I think "awarded" might be debatable. Anyone else have any thoughts?
  14. I know I've read about him before but somehow something odd missed my attention. He was sent back (to Germany) after having been relieved and according to the Wikipedia page, he bought a house in Northwest Poland in October of 44. What the hell was he thinking??? Surely by then he knew the war was lost didn't he? I often wonder when certain high ranking officers first realized the war was hopelessly lost and over my years of reading, I've been fascinated to learn that those dates are pretty wide ranging. Some say the day the war began, they knew they were doomed. Others say after the invasion of Russia, some say after the Invasion of France etc. But how could a highly intelligent man such as Von Manstein not know by October'44 that the land his new estate was on would be overrun by Russians soon? I'm wondering if anyone on here has read his memoirs and has any insights.
  15. George, I appreciate the reply but to be honest, I'm not sure I follow. Insofar as my hypothetical, you're saying that if Germany was knocked out early and the Western allies did then move to drive the Soviets out of Poland, then things would have not gone to plan from Stalin's point of view? Apologies if I've misunderstood.
×
×
  • Create New...