Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

BunkerGearGal

Private
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. BunkerGearGal

    What was the best submachine gun of WWII?

    Sorry, just spoke with him, It is a Canadian made Mark II. The Thompson is an M1A1. The MP40 is a 1943 manufacture and was apparently a Luftwaffe issued weapon. As to holding a weapon by the mag, I shudder when I see that as well. I personally have a Sig P226 and a Remington 812 for personal home defense. I get by with them.
  2. BunkerGearGal

    What was the best submachine gun of WWII?

    I have fired all 4, (NOT owned by me, but by friends) and in my personal (biased and un scientific) opinion it's the MP40. The Sten was cheap and easy to make, but was "flimsy" (for want of a better word) and I found it less than accurate. (I own many Firearms, and go to the range often, so am, I feel, a better than average shot, as such in this regard I will claim to know whereof I speak). The Thompson was a good weapon, but was more expensive to manufacture, even in mass production. And while the .45 ACP round is bigger than the 9mm, it is particular to that weapon and the M1911, so if ammo becomes an issue, you can't use British 9mm for their Stens, or captured German 9mm from their pistols and SMG's in your Thompson. In a wartime environment that can actually be a critical issue. Especially as in Europe all the .45 ammo had to be brought in, while 9mm could be found almost everywhere. NATO recognized this, and now all Assault Rifles are 5.56 and pistols 9mm, so it doesn't matter whose ammo it is, we can use it to get the job done. The PPSh I fired was a good, solid weapon. A little light on the accuracy (but for what The Soviets used it for that was no big issue) Having a box or drum magazine is nice as you can have more rounds ready to go with the drum, which is great in CQB to be sure. It was cheap to produce and was reliable, and to my mind is a close second. The MP40, perhaps the most iconic of all WWII SMG's and the most recognizable, was well manufactured, even those produced near the end of the war. Had fewer stoppages due to stove-piping of ejected rounds, and had the least amount of rise (at least that's what I found) of the 4. Just my $0.02 worth.
  3. My knowledge of Taranto, and the Japanese using it as a blue print/genesis for their Pearl Harbor attack were not known by me before you were kind enough to point it out. I will read further about it and greatly appreciate the heads up in that regard. As well, "The Foresight War" is new to me, and I will make a point of finding a copy and reading it. Again, it would appear, I am in your debt. Hating a group of people, being racist towards them and treating them badly can, I would posit, be mutually exclusive. You can give the appearance of treating them well, and USE THEM for your ends while still having complete and utter contempt for them and plan for their eventual annihilation down the road after you have extracted every last bit of use out of them you can. An interesting premise too. If The German's had a man of the future guiding them, it may have worked out better for them . . . had they heeded his advice. To my mind Hitler made far more mistakes than The Allies did and would come out better in such a scenario. While I understand that you find condescending to me to be required, and even I will admit partly warranted; I hasten to point out that I have not claimed to be an expert. Far from it. And I meant what I said, I do genuinely appreciate the knowledge I have learned from this interaction with you, and will pursue it so as to widen my understanding of the subject matter. Pace vobiscum
  4. Excellent points, and information did not heretofore know, so I appreciate it. Genuinely I do, I am here to learn as much as anything else and value interactions like this. Except for Stalin's personnel matters with his Generals, that I was aware of, and what I meant to say, but patently didn't, (and that's on me) is that, unlike Hitler, Stalin would listen to his General's Tactical and Strategic advice a lot more closely, and not interfere in it as much as Hitler did. At least, that is my understanding of things. Still, for a 33 y/o woman whose 5 yrs of service saw me rise steadily to the lofty rank of E4, I do OK; arguably better than most in my particular cohort! LOL! Really enjoying this site.
  5. BunkerGearGal

    Average Germans knew Nazi atrocities

    For sure railroad workers had knowledge, and while they were often reticent to share it, it did leak out. Many Germans refused to believe it, they felt their Fuhrer would never go that far; and the measures to hide it these crimes were ornate. In fact, that is why the Extermination Camps were mostly in the Occupied East, and not withing Germany proper. Plausible deniability.
  6. A military necessity. It was by no means a War Crime, and the alternative, an invasion of The Japanese Home Islands would have led to a far larger slaughter, not just of Allied lives, but also Japanese lives. It is so easy to sit back 70 odd years later and pontificate and be self righteous, but at the time, it was an absolute necessity! Period, end of story.
  7. BunkerGearGal

    Nazi Germany

    He ruled The Reich for 12 years, that is for sure. There were far more killed in his name than just the 6 million Jews of Die Endlossung, and he is a mass murderer by proxy, like Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. (That in no way excuses him, it was ll done in his name after all). In the end he lost, thankfully; and he pretty much has only himself to blame for that as well.
  8. I will preface this by saying I am no expert in the field, by no means a tactical or strategic genius of any kind, but these are just my thoughts and opinions. They should be valued at what you paid for them, but it is so very nice to have stumbled across this venue and I couldn't wait to get my feet wet, as it were. ======== Shit! This is a hard one! I think the greatest gift we (The Allies) had was the fact that Hitler was Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht to be quite honest. In the end he was worth several Divisions to us, and several dozen Divisions to The Soviets. But if I had to pick one it would be between The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa. Pearl Harbor because that was the genesis for Germany declaring war on us (The United States), which was one of Hitler's biggest mistakes, and in his particular case that is saying something. Before the declaration of war against America, it was, for all practical purposes, a one front war; the Ostfront. Oh, there was the usual saber rattling in the west, and to be sure the air war over Britian was very real, especially for the innocent victims thereof; but it wasn't (at that time) a ground war in Europe, and all that that entails. It never ceases to amaze me that Hitler, who never kept any pacts he made with anyone, chose to keep the one he had with Japan! Oh, I know, he expected Japan to jump off against Russia; but that, in my estimation, was nowhere near adequate enough a reason. Japan's Imperial ambitions were not in invading The Soviet Union, but in expanding their sphere of influence in the Pacific. America was the only country then, and I would posit even today, that was capable of successfully prosecuting a 2 ocean war. So, Pearl Harbor as the cause of Germany's declaration of war against America ranks right up there. Having said that, I must also say Barbarossa was ill conceived in the long run. Hitler's (indeed OKW's) complete contempt for the quality of Soviet troops and officers was swayed, I feel more by arrogance than what they saw in Finland; and it cost them dearly in the long run. Stalin, however Machiavellian he may have been, was no dummy. When required, he gave his General's there reign and let them do the actual planning without much interference. He was brilliant in that regard. The German's firm belief the war would be over by Christmas and they'd be triumphant masters over a tame Soviet Union informed too much of their planning. The debacle of denuding Army Group Center of it's armor and SP Artillery to run up and assist Army Group North, just as AG Center was on the outskirts of Moscow will go down as one of the biggest Tactical and Strategic mistakes of modern warfare! In the Soviet system, destroying or capturing Moscow would have been tantamount to cutting the head off of The Hydra. They were unprepared for the weather, or the circumstances. And then, to confound the stupidity, they ran roughshod over the Ukrainians!! When the Germans first entered The Soviet Union, many people saw them as Liberators! Come to rescue them from the yolk of Communism! There was genuine good will there, and if it had been exploited and encouraged, the dividends it would have paid would have been incalculable! Even with Die Endlossung they would have had willing help from the locals; whose antisemitism was on a par with Nazi doctrine. But the race theorists, of whom Hitler was Chief, went about their usual foolishness and turned the population against them. Hitler's asinine insistence on no surrender, no retreat, and just declaring every town, village and city a "Festung" that was to be defended to the last man and last bullet needlessly wasted so many lives, and so much equipment, that they were never able to make up for it. Anyhow, I realize this is far from comprehensive but just my random thoughts at 01:49 on a Friday morning. I look forward to responses, good and bad; my ego is not fragile. In balance,I guess it was Barbarossa after all that was the beginning of the end for Germany.
×