|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Wily WildeWily Wilde
Date: Jan 18, 2007 22:49
netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message news:eopcl6> the US soldiers,
etc., all very matter-of-factly. Speaking of his fallen
> comrades, he says "You can't say they died for nothing. It would be
> horrible if they died for nothing." Long pause. Then, tearfully, "But
> it's very difficult to say what they died for."
Thanks Mike, That was great.
I think that last sentence speaks volumes. It must be very hard for the Axis
soldiers to "celebrate" the heroism of their comrades and also come to grips
with the absolute evil nature of the regime that they fought for.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Geoffrey SinclairGeoffrey Sinclair
Date: Jan 18, 2007 09:00
> The Soviet government refused to sign the Geneva Convention on
> Prisoners of War (the Geneva convention was and add on to the Hague
> conventions), refused to cooperate with the International Red Cross
> (the Nazis allowed the Red Cross to visit concentration camps),
Of course we know how stage managed such visits were, and when
were the visits to the death camps again?
> and
> resoundingly rebuffed German feelers forwarded through neutralist
> concerning compliance with the Hague Convention.
Given from the first the Germans did not treat the Red Army prisoners
according to the conventions please tell us when these approaches
were made.
The Germans had signed the convention, they were supposed to
follow it.
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Geoffrey SinclairGeoffrey Sinclair
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:59
> Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>>> Andrew Clark wrote:
>>>> yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>>> SNIP
>>>
>>> Firstly the "only in britain" statement is incorrect. The japanese
>>> developed high power impulse magnetrons, developed them earlier 1939
>>> and had magnetron radars in service earlier.
>>
>> Most countries had good magnetrons in the late 1930s, all you
>> need to do is be careful what Magnetron means in each case.
>>
>> The US and Germany had Magnetrons in the early 1920s for example.
>> See also the Soviet cavity magnetron.
> ...
|
| Show full article (54.45Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Carey SubletteCarey Sublette
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:11
"Andrew Clark" nospamstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S9ednTIu2f8R_jLYnZ2dnUVZ8q-mnZ2d@giganews.com...> "Carey Sublette" earthling.net> wrote
>>> Although the larger point of British frustration of being treated as a
>> decidedly junior partner, before being frozen out entirely at war's end
>> is valid, it is interesting to note that right at the start of the U.S.
>> scientific mobilization to work on the atomic bomb - which was the
>> authorization of S-1 in October 1941, and the months leading up to it -
>> the British took a stand-offish attitude towards American appeals for a
>> close collaboration.
>>
>> See Margaret Gowing's "Britain and Atomic Energy: 1939-1945" pages
>> 122-126.
>
> (snip quote for 50%% rule)
>
>> Although one can scarcely find fault with the British sharing of
>> information, with the MAUD report and so on (and a corresponding free
>> sharing of information from the U.S. continued for quite some time after ...
|
| Show full article (3.36Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Remo Gualerzi BarazzoniRemo Gualerzi Barazzoni
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:10
"Rich Rostrom" rcn.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-E49C9B.12272917012007@news.isp.giganews.com...
cut
> This muddle was at 5th Army HQ, under Clark's
> direct supervision. Alexander's theater HQ was
> at the same location (the old palace of the
> Bourbon kings of Naples at Caserta).
>
> Peniakoff does not mention either Clark or
> Alexander by name, but his contempt for 5th
> Army HQ is palpable - the squabbling, the
> bloated HQ staff.
>
> Lucas was the man on the spot, but responsibility
> goes up - Clark and Alexander share the blame.
These were probably the kind of "secret informations" and considerations
that inspired the analysis and evaluation of the OSS Peter Tompkins on all
the matter of Operation "Shingle" at Anzio.
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: eunometiceunometic
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:09
ironwind wrote:
> I'm curious what percentage of German tanks was destroyed by air as opposed
> to ground actions on the Western Front durring WWII. From what I
> understand, the majority of German tanks were destroyed by either air
> strikes or abandonement (such as at Falaise) rather than tank vs tank
> warfare.
>
> If anyone knows these percentages, please let me know.
See the thread "Fighter-bomber destruction of tanks" in this NG. The
Tony Gunston website and his books are good references as well.
This gives the probabillity of a hit by a rocket projectile as 5%% in
training and 0.5%% in combat.
Because a typical aicraft gun fires at around 800ms (Hispano, Mauser
MG151/20) or 900ms the forward movement of the A/C adds considerable
kinetic energy.
I believe direct hits destroyed only about 6%% of panzers, the bulk
being abandoned due to lack of fuel, perhaps imobilised by damage that
could not be made good in the retreat. In some cases the kill rates
were much higher.
|
| Show full article (2.98Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Andrew ClarkAndrew Clark
Date: Jan 18, 2007 05:30
"Joel Shepherd" ix.netcom.com> wrote
(snip preliminaries)
> Once the genie was out of the bottle ... the genie was out. Britain
> clearly had the science to develop an atomic bomb, had the engineering
> capability to build one, and (I suspect: feel free to correct...
|
| Show full article (4.68Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Andrew ClarkAndrew Clark
Date: Jan 18, 2007 04:10
"Carey Sublette" earthling.net> wrote
> Although the larger point of British frustration of being treated as a
> decidedly junior partner, before being frozen out entirely at war's end is
> valid, it is interesting to note that right at the start of the U.S.
> scientific mobilization to work on the atomic bomb - which was the
> authorization of S-1 in October 1941, and the months leading up to it -
> the British took a stand-offish attitude towards American appeals for a
> close collaboration.
>
> See Margaret Gowing's "Britain and Atomic Energy: 1939-1945" pages
> 122-126.
(snip quote for 50%% rule)
> Although one can scarcely find fault with the British sharing of
> information, with the MAUD report and so on (and a corresponding free
> sharing of information from the U.S. continued for quite some time after
> the start of S-1 and then the Manhattan Project), we see that when the
> British held the upper hand, they did not want to go further than this.
> Once places were exchanged, is it altogether surprising that the U.S.
> would succumb to the same temptation?
|
| Show full article (2.54Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Wesley JohnstonWesley Johnston
Date: Jan 17, 2007 21:21
Which US Division had the most men killed in combat in the Netherlands?
I believe the only candidates are: 2ID, 7AD, 30ID, 82AB, 101AB, 82AB.
This is NOT a question of which of these divisions lost the most men in the
war
-- but specifically deaths in Holland (or DOW deaths elsewhere from
wounds in Holland).
|
| |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Andrew ClarkAndrew Clark
Date: Jan 17, 2007 09:06
"Albert" comcast.net> wrote
> When the Too Far Was Written I believe ULTRA was still secret. The
> movie tries to emphasize the role of the Dutch underground and aerial
> reconnaissance Now we know that is not nearly the case regarding
> intelligence, How is it that the movement of the Ninth and Tenth SS
> Panzer Divisions went unoticed through ULTRA.
They did not go wholly unnoticed either through ULTRA (although ULTRA was
dependent on radio eavesdropping, and units in western Europe often used
telephone lines) or through other recon methods, including aerial
photography. But the signs were, generally, played down; the prevailing
mindset was that the Germans were in retreat and dispersed and there had
been too many other false alarms about large German formations for this
particular one to be taken too seriously.
Depending on your point of view, the Allies were either criminally negligent
or understandably misled...
The other two points to remember are
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
