# What If?......



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

On this thread post some of the "what ifs?"of WW2.

example:
If the Piaggio P.108 was taken notice of by the germans, could it have given them the heavy bomber they desperately needed? With its 7,714lb payload and 2,175 miles range, it was similar to the b-17 in many respects, and as it had superb defensive armament it could probaby ave held off some enemy planes 8)
If the Germans had taken notice of this planes potential, and if production had continued i reckon it coud have played a large part in the war for the Axis 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

It probably would of done, and they might of even won the BoB..  

But they didn't and Britain won...AHAHAHA!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

the P.108 production began in 1941 though.......


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

I heard they had a heavy bomber anyway, but I can't remember its name...  Obviously they didn't use it, or it was late war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

i think you are thinking of the heinkel he-177, a great plane and one of my favourites but it was too lte and had too many flaws for it to play a major role


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes it could've done in my opinion....the Germans didn't take the Italian airforce very seriously during the war (who did?) and after the terrible embarrasment to the Luftwaffe during the battle of britain when the Italians led a few futile raids and went home with their tails between their legs - even less so

but that doesn't mean the pizza munching fiends didn't build any decent planes  the Sm.79 was a damn fine bomber (especially in the torpedo role) the G.50 wasn't bad (except the two machine guns part) and the Cr.42 (despite my protests) WAS a damn good biplane fighter (but not as good as the Gladiator - sorry kiwi) 

I don't know much about the P-108 i have to say..so going on what C.C said (for some reason i trust him 8) ) and the little i have read for myself i think the P-108 was a definate threat to the Allies - but if it was so good why didn't the Italians use it more effectively? the Germans were usually a bit pre-occupied with their own problems to notice anyone elses (and as i said the italians were a joke to them) but if they had notcied they probably would've 'germanised' it (to borrow a phrase from viper - RIP  ) anyway and made it into a German bomber before they used it - but why didn't the Italians use it in the Mediterranean theatre? 

besides you have to remember that we had some very effective home-defence fighters (spitfires, hurricanes, mossies etc) and i have enough faith in the RAF during that period to say that it would have to be a supersonic Jet-bomber to get through our defenses without suffering incredible losses


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

Who took the Italians seriously? Even on the ground they were a joke. A good piece of equipment was soon made poor if an Italian got in it. 

I suppose if the production started in 1941, they could of started again with heavier bombers after we beat the hell out of them in 1940.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> but if it was so good why didn't the Italians use it more effectively



well, mussolinins son was killed in ne and it was this that slowed production 8) they also made a version with 102mmguns for attacking shipping, and 12 of the 163 P.108's made were transprt versions, so the italians obviously had big plans for the plane before the complications arose


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

So if the Italians turned onto our side in 1943 (or was it 1942?)

did we use the P-108 to kill Germans? and if not...why not?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

The Italians never turned to our side. They just capatilised in 1943 when we invaded Italy. They never helped us militarily, this is probably why we didn't use it. And with that, we had plenty of heavy bombers. 

102mm guns, are you serious? What a stupid idea, that's bigger than most tank guns. One variant of Henschel 129 had a 75mm cannon, I thought that was over the top. It did work though, very well apparently. Even if there were only 25 of them. But 102 mm? That's just crazy..  

(I just wanted to use that emoticon for not particular reason)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> But 102 mm? That's just crazy



italians were always crazy 



> did we use the P-108 to kill Germans? and if not...why not



a lot of them were captured by the germans and/or scrapped


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

They were crazy, the unfortunate thing was that they weren't besserk crazy, instead of running at their enemy when the enemy took their safety catches off they ran away shouting 'GERMANY SAVE US THOSE NASTY GREEKS HAVE BEATEN US' then in North Africa 'GERMANY SAVE US THOSE NASTY BRITISH ARE BEATING US TO DEATH!!!' and then in Sicily and Italy 'We give up'.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

respect to the italians though please 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

Italian by any chance? 

I'm sorry, but even the Greeks beat them. And in North Africa, the Nile army counter attack captured 130,000 at a loss of 500 dead and 1,200 wounded. One thing for the Italians, they didn't really want to fight by 1943. 
I respect anyone who fought, even the Romanians. Hah.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

no im a brit 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

It's kind of confusing with the love of Italians, and the demand of respect for them. Oh, and the Soviet flag.


----------



## R Pope (Apr 2, 2004)

Italians never went over to our side? Ever heard of the Co-belligerant Air Force? Macchi 202's, 205's and more fighting alongside Brits and Yanks.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

Yeah I agree with Pope - the Italians did fight with us against the Nazis...only briefly but i'm sure they did- as for respect the Italians do deserve a bit - they may not have been very effective fighters BUT at least they tried...unlike some other nations i could mention but won't...*cough* France! *cough* 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

And you consider that help? 

France? Well France were cowards but they were just as bad as the Italians. The 120,000 Vichy French in North Africa and those Italians would have been a brilliant force in numbers, only problem is they see an enemy and surrender. 

How can you respect the Italians and not respect the French, it's double standards. 

If you call out-numbering the British 6-1 in North Africa then being beaten by them at a loss of 130,000 captured while the British lost 500 dead and 1,200 injured, you have low standards of trying.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

> Well France were cowards but they were just as bad as the Italians



how dare you  nobody is as bad as the french  and you are talking about the italians likethey were WORSE  i agree with bronze 8) the potential was there, it just nobody took them seriously and they werent good enough to make their ideas work.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 2, 2004)

OK so the P.108 was good, but if the problums could have been resolved or Germans would have taken 4 engines Heavies seriously it would have made it. The plane was good but could have been out in production before '41. This would have given the Germans what they needed. But more importantly if they would have really put some money behind the 4 engine heavies that would have helped chace the russians past the mountains.

On the other hand, what if the Americans came in to the war in '39?


----------



## Piaggio108 (Apr 2, 2004)

He 177 good, Hah! It was awful! It's engines overheated and cought on fire as a pastime! It had strucual problems, and yet they tried to use it as a dive bomber! I thought there had been a mistake when I heard the ju88 was a dive bomber! something like 50% of the prototypes crashed! It was the worst plane ever!
On the Piaggio 108A, the one with the 102mm cannon, one prototype was fited with one for trials as a anti-ship aircraft. That I know of, no more were made.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

plan_D said:


> And you consider that help?
> 
> France? Well France were cowards but they were just as bad as the Italians. The 120,000 Vichy French in North Africa and those Italians would have been a brilliant force in numbers, only problem is they see an enemy and surrender.
> 
> ...



No the Italians weren't as bad as the French..the French weren't only cowards they were also arrogant and stupid...who else would build a fortified wall to stop the German advance...only to have the Germans walk around it?  

The Germans took back the Rhineland off the french at the start of the war without a single shot being fired (yes thats true) because the French ran away as soon as they saw the Germans coming (also true)

On one particular occasion (i'm afraid i don't have the location to hand right now-its 1.44am but i'll post it later) The French had to have many of their warships sunk by BRITISH ships because the German navy were advancing towards the hugely outnumbered AND outgunned French Navy and the French refused to scuttle their ships...so the Brits did it for them at the cost of many french lives (because Britain was not prepared to have the Germans capture them and turn them against the Allies) How arrogant and mindless could the French get??! 

The French leader Degaulle (spelt incorrectly) was so arrogant and annoying that Churchill and Roosevelt actually planned his assasination...the French were a bunch of useless twats...as i once heard it said "The only war the French ever won was their Civil war...and that was because they were fighting themselves" 

Their airforce was useless, their army was useless and as for their navy...they were all in all a joke..  

The Italians however had a decent airforce (although it wasn't used to its full potencial because of incopetance of command) I will admit their army wasn't great but it certainly had its moments (any French army moments? no thought not  ) their navy was somtimes effective - their midget subs caused chaos with allied shipping early on in the war bt none of these things can the French claim

fair enough Plan_D neither of these nations were very good at fighting but i would rank the Italians over the Frogs any day...at least they lasted longer before they were occupied


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 2, 2004)

When the italian soldiers had good equipment they were the equal of any of the allied armies. The problem here was that mussolini threw them into a war poorly-armed and ill-equipped

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 3, 2004)

I could easily beleive that...Mussolini was a Muppet


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 3, 2004)

As a f'r instance



> August - Russians near Serafimovich launch a counterattack against the Italians holding the Don River in the hope of holding back the advances to Stalingrad. The Italians were outnumbered yet told to stand their ground and fight to the end. They eventually beat back the Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. The battle in Serafimovich cost the Italians 1,700 men, but capture 1,600 Russian POW's and many small arms.
> 
> August 24 - With the victory in Serafimovich, the Italian Savoia Cavalry made up of 600 men mounted a counter attack on the Isbuschenski steppe. The Russian's comprised of 2,000 men with mortar and artillery support. One squadron attacked head on, while the other came behind the enemy lines on horseback and possessing only sabers. They completely catch the Soviets by surprise and overrun the Russian position.
> Italian calvary gearing for an attack in Soviet Union
> ...



Source: http://www.comandosupremo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=790&highlight=cavalry

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

> He 177 good, Hah! It was awful! It's engines overheated and cought on fire as a pastime! It had strucual problems, and yet they tried to use it as a dive bomber!



a bit like the manchester then 8)

and another thing its the P.108, not the 108 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

yes, you could be mistaken for talking about the Me-108


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

yup 8) the plane that was used in the great escape 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

it wasn't, ok people, which plane was used in the film the great escape?

it think it's the Bu-181, C.C. thinks it's the Me-108.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

no, i KNOW it was the Me-108 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 4, 2004)

The P.108 was abit like their Navy - Big ships, big guns, and Mussolini, big mouth; they sat at home most of the time , until the Allies caught-up with them - If the Italians actually ended-up fighting for the Allies, it's because they didn't like the cold steel up 'em. We lost alotta Kiwis kicking the Germans out of Italy, and I haven't seen anything yet that's impressed me that's Italian - Or French for that matter. Alotta men died because of both countries fatuous leaders or lack of them. I do respect the work of the French Resistance and the help they gave Allied aircrew and the Free French aircrew that fought with the Allies, but both countries had selfish attitudes. New Zealander's don't forget the Rainbow Warrior bombing either, or their nuclear farts in the Pacific . Both nations are ego-centric and selfish.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> I haven't seen anything yet that's impressed me that's Italian



the italians are actually a very successful country 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

Yes....the best Pizzas i've ever eaten were in Rome  but seriously  i have to say Gemhorse if you want to see something Italian to impress you...go to the Vatican and see Michaelangelos Sistine Chapel...its the most mindblowing piece of art in the world..and i mean REAL art not all this crap you see today in the Tate modern etc


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

the italians really do know a thing about beaty though, ive never seen and ugly italian car or plane or anything else 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

And Gemhorse,

The Italians were brave fighters and hard opponents. It was not the fault of the soldier that their government sent them out poorly armed and poorly supplied. The myth of the cowardly Italian fighting-man is just that, a myth.

As to your latter point, to expect a country not to be self-interested is somewhat short-sighted. Even NZ has acted in such ways, I point out to you the horrible bloody mess NZ made in Samoa around the turn of the 20th Century.

Kiwimac


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 5, 2004)

The Italian Piaggio was one of the best bombers made but their entry in the war was not until the 9th of June 1942. It carried 7,700 lbs of bombs. The P108B was equipped with a 102 mm canon and that must have been a thrill to fire that canon while in flight.The B-25H had a 75 mm canon and I have seen gun camera movies of that canon in action. Plus the B-25H had 14 .50 caliber machine guns to add to the punch.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

ahanswurst said:


> Plus the B-25H had 14 .50 caliber machine guns to add to the punch.



jesus, thats one hell of a punch! :grab:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> It carried 7,700 lbs of bombs



somebodies done their research wrong, it was 7,714lbs  there was a P.108T as well, which was a transport version 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Blimey..who would've known that 14lbs would've made such a difference  ...oh yeah Lanc...i know its slightly off topic
(so sue me  ) but i read the other day that the Avro Lancaster was originally designed to have a ventral turret guarding its underside but the designers at Avro had the turret removed so they could have a larger bomb load...did you know that  

sounds to me like they were deeply concerned with the crews safety


----------



## Andrew (Apr 7, 2004)

The first Lancasters to come off the production line were fitted with the ventral turret , it was subsequently removed .


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 7, 2004)

Andrew, The RAF should have kept the vertral turret!! It would have helped on the daylight raids and the night. Too meny Lancs went down to attack from below.

But I am a lover of the USAAF B-24!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

bronze, the lancs got an incompetent hard drive again 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh god - gone all floppy again has it?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

nice one mate but seriously now lets go back to the what ifs


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

What if....Hitler had children


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

i would be one of them


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Hey, don't tick me off for wandering off topic and then do it yourself!  seriously....what would the future hold if the Allies stormed Hitlers bunker at the end of 1945 to find a few babies that belonged to Hitler and Eva Braun...would they be exectuted and hidden from history for no-one to ever know about or would they be taken away and fostered and never told who they were - or simply raised in Germany fully aware of who they were..surely children of such a murderous animal would inherit some of his...ahem 'characteristics'


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

hitler was probably too old to have hanky-panky (being 50 in 1939) AND i believe that they would NOT be executed, rather given to a foster family aware of what they had on their hands


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Actually men are still able to have babies in their 80's mate 8) - Charlie Chaplin had his last kid when he was 82 (or there abouts)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

but did chaplin have parkinsons and severe stress and other mental probs? NO! and i knew aboot the able-to-have-babies-even-at-a-very-old-age thing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

ok here's one, what if the sausage hadn't been invented, would we have won the war?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2004)

So what what ifs do you want? try this one, if the British and German's had not started to bomb eachother's town's to ash and kept to military targets would that have made a difference? Would the war had ended differently?


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 9, 2004)

I do not believe that England _could be_ England *without* the sausage! 

As for what might have happened if the various sides had stuck to military targets. The Germans would have over-powered the English quite quickly as they were in fact quite close to doing.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

are you saying that we are weak without sausages?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 10, 2004)

Kiwimac: that would have been the best for Germany, well if that and stay out of Russia as long as posible. Stalin was going to move West, but he needed more time. Hittler should have stayed out of military matters. Or better yet just out of everything!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

it was definatly a huge mistake to invade russaia..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 12, 2004)

But Russia is so tempting, all that land materials, and the hate shock: But every army has seemed to fail, going West to East!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> but did chaplin have parkinsons and severe stress and other mental probs? NO! and i knew aboot the able-to-have-babies-even-at-a-very-old-age thing


He might have done, besides i should think most 80 year olds would have trouble getting it up anyway...so there is no reason to beleive that hitler wasn't capable of having children...other than the fact that he was a pervert who liked little boys (hence his interest in the young boys of the Hitler youth  ) his relationship with Eva Braun was just a front so his true colours weren't exposed....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

If Britain and Germany had stuck to military targets and acted first hand, Britain would have won. If we were dropping bombs instead of leaflets in 1939, and invaded while they were in Poland Germany would have been defeated quickly. 
The only reason bombing became harder is because of the increased AA defences which were in place due to German realisation that their AA defences were inadequete if the British could get through to drop leaflets. 

The British at the start won in Norway, took Cities back in France and only collapsed when they realised the Belgians and French were no help. And through lack of supplies from Britain, had we been gearing up for war properly instead of allowing Chamberlain to have his way Germany would have been defeated in 1939.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

You can't criticise the Belgians and I personally don't think you should put the French army and the Belgian army in the same bracket under 'useless'  

The Belgians might not have been much good at fighting but at least they fought the Germans hard and refused to give in when other nations bent over and let the Germans have their way without even resisting....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

You're joking, right?

Belgium fell faster than France, 7 days. 5 Weeks for Poland, 4 days for Denmark and Norway, 7 days for Belgium, 6 weeks for France. Belgium, Denmark and France were all useless. The only reason I don't include Holland there is because a lot of Dutch supported Germany, and the government ordered cease fires before Germany even got there. 

Belgium collapsed, they collapsed and ran. Just like the French. And then they had the cheek to have a go at Britain for pulling out.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

Of course i'm not joking  

The Belgians were asked by Germany if they could allow the German army to pass through Belgium to strike the French - If the Belgians allowed this the Germans promised not to harm them - however the Belgians refused and when Germany then threatened them 'or else' the Belgians said "Bring it on"  

The Belgians may have fallen quickly but that was only because their army was weak and had no experience, they didn't run away (unlike the French in the Rhineland   ) - plus Belgium is considerably smaller than france my friend 

The Belgians fought the Germans every inch of the way and refused to give in - as i said they might not have been effective but they fought hard and didn't surrender - and after Belgium was taken alot of them came over here to join our airforce and fight the Luftwaffe during the Battle Of Britain...so i really think you ought to show them some respect 

And Norway wasn't useless either!


----------



## brad (Apr 13, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Of course i'm not joking
> 
> The Belgians were asked by Germany if they could allow the German army to pass through Belgium to strike the French - If the Belgians allowed this the Germans promised not to harm them - however the Belgians refused and when Germany then threatened them 'or else' the Belgians said "Bring it on"
> 
> ...


 well said


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

rather................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2004)

No, the Belgians lasted 7 days, 7 days isn't worth respect they gave in straight away. The Rheinland wasn't even French land, it's just like our appeasement on the Munich Crisis. 
I never said the Norweigans were useless, I said the Danish. Completely different countries. A lot of French came over here and fought as well, you have double standards. You either respect both the French and Belgians or you respect none of them. They were both the same, they gave in as soon as the Germans took their safety catches off. 

Poland had much less of an army than Belgium and they lasted 5 weeks, they deserve respect not Belgium, or France. 

Size doesn't make power, look at Britain, it controlled one third of the world.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 13, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No, the Belgians lasted 7 days, 7 days isn't worth respect they gave in straight away. The Rheinland wasn't even French land, it's just like our appeasement on the Munich Crisis.
> *I never said the Norweigans were useless, I said the Danish. *Completely different countries. A lot of French came over here and fought as well, you have double standards. You either respect both the French and Belgians or you respect none of them. They were both the same, they gave in as soon as the Germans took their safety catches off.
> 
> Poland had much less of an army than Belgium and they lasted 5 weeks, they deserve respect not Belgium, or France.
> ...



Danish were not useless! Danishs fought harder than you can immagine! They were only surprised by German troops. It's recognised world wide, just look in a _good _history book or ask peoples who were there. I know somebody of my family that was there and he didn't gave up.

And that's almost the same thing for the Dutch. Of corse, they fell fast, but they resisted after the invasion (like the Danish). I know a Canadian commando that fought in the Operation Market-Garden, he said that the Dutch were welcoming them like if they were gods and that the "resistance" against the Germans was _much _harder than in France.

And like an other member said about Belgium, Denmark and Holland are quite smaller than France, so they couldn't have a *BIG *army.

France had a big country with a big army. Danish and Dutch had a small country with a small army. France has a _much _bigger population than Denmark or Holland. So look carefully at every aspects of a conflict before saying that a country is useless.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

When the Allies went into Holland they were very welcoming, like a lot of them were of the Germans. The women that were shaven by the Dutch men and swastikas drawn on their heads, traitors. The Dutch didn't fight, neither did the Danish. Resistance movements were small, very small. The Danish ordered cease fires before the Germans even arrived, 'do not provoke the German forces'. 
Do you think the Polish had a good military? They lasted five weeks, a lot longer than Denmark or Belgium. I don't care about the Dutch, they had a Dutch SS, they weren't bothered. You have double standards, France were useless, just like Denmark and Belgium, or none of them were useless. 
Not all of France was against Germany, the Vichy French supported them. The French got hit just as hard, if not harder than the Belgians or Danish. The Germans went through the Ardennes, Belgian land but with the British and French trying to hold it. 

And the French lasted 6 weeks, there is no excuse for 7 days.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 14, 2004)

Your point about Dutch SS is wrong... I mean, yes, it had a Dutch SS but who cares? West-Canadian created a Waffen SS regiment in Alberta in 1939, Québec created a Nazi Party also in 1939, and U.S.A. created the Klu Klux Klan and we went at war. No one fell in front of the IIIrd Reich, nor Canada, nor U.S.A.!

Go there:
 http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-invasion-denmark-norway-01.html

You'll see that Denmark was surprised. They sought a Treaty of Non-Aggression with the Germany the 31st May 1939 and the were attacked the 9th April 1940. A Treaty of Non-Aggression means that the country want to stay neutral, not that they surender or that they are allied with Germany!

And if you look History, you'll see that the Denmark was in war with the Germany almost every days since the beginning of Antiquity. Those countries don't like each others, they would never be allied!

You want a proof? My great grand-father was Danish. He fought the German at the end of the 19th century an moved here around the year 1900. I think the country was still at war!

You want more? Look in the Larousse Dictionary (a French dictionary). Find "Danemark" and read what is written. It's written "...en 1864: le Holstein, le Slesvig et le Lauenbourg furent enlevés au Danemark, après une guerre où les vaincus déployèrent le plus grand courage..." So I don't think they would love the German enough to surender without fighting. Even if the battle was short, it was a tough one.

An other thing, I think Einstein was Danish, wasn't he ? (If somebody knows, tell it to me.) He was a Jewish Danish that requested asylum to the U.S.A. after his country was invaded. The guy who found the secret of atomic power was Danish! So this country isn't useless.

But we must keep in mind that they were *SURPRISED *in 1940.

And of corse I have double standards! Polish didn't had a big army, but the country was big. The Denmark or the Holland was the half smaller than Poland, even smaller!

When you talk about war, you must take in consideration the political background, the size of the country, the size and power of the army, their technological adventages/desaventages, the weather, geographical area... *EVERYTHING*! Not only the time they held and the size of their army!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No, the Belgians lasted 7 days, 7 days isn't worth respect they gave in straight away. The Rheinland wasn't even French land, it's just like our appeasement on the Munich Crisis.
> I never said the Norweigans were useless, I said the Danish. Completely different countries. A lot of French came over here and fought as well, you have double standards. You either respect both the French and Belgians or you respect none of them. They were both the same, they gave in as soon as the Germans took their safety catches off.
> 
> Poland had much less of an army than Belgium and they lasted 5 weeks, they deserve respect not Belgium, or France.
> ...



You don't think holding off an army as big as the Germans for 7 days is worth respect? don't be a fool  
it isn't the amount of time they held the Nazis off that matters...the point is they fought...and for your information it was France's job to look after the Rhineland and the wankers ran off before the Germans even got there...most of the French army were cowards...which can't be said of the Belgians...i don't know where you get your information from but i'm beginning to think its another planet  

you said in one of your previous posts that Norway lasted as long as the Danes and then said the Danes were useless - based on that logic (though your logic seems faulty in this case  ) to say the danes were useless based on the amount of time they held off the Germans (which seems the only reasonable basis for your arguments) then logically you are tarring Norway with the same brush...  

I don't have double standards...of course there were some French fighters that came over here...but only VERY FEW - the vast majority of French soldiers/pilots etc didn't want to know about the war - they were worse than Americans! (No offence America  ) 

I don't respect the French (during that period) but I DO respect the Belgians....because they deserved respect...and as for your remark about the Belgians giving in as soon as the Germans took their safety catch off...i'm not going to even waste my time answering such a ridiculus statement...all i will say is this: Do your homework because i think your ignorance on this subject is offending some people....


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

And another thing.....it took 18 days for the Belgians to give in...not 1 week  

please see link which also shows that the Belgians were only equipped with 1 squadron with a handful of aircraft...unlike the French who had hundreds of planes...  

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbelgium.htm


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

It's funny how you talk about the Dutch SS, then go on about the Danish in the same subject. Dutch isn't Danish. Stick to one country. The Dutch SS was part of the German army, and fought against the Allies in Operation Market Garden. 
There was a British SS, made up of 15 British POWs, there was a British Facist Party, the Black Shirts, 40,000 supporters. This means, what? Nothing because Britain was never taken. 

The Danish were surprised, and they gave in straight away. 1900 isn't 1940. The Russians were surprised in 1941, lost almost all of their army, airforce and tank force within a few months. Surprised isn't any excuse. The Belgians, and Danish didn't even get hit hard, they were distraction strikes, it was the British and the French that felt the worst of the blow. 
You go on about size of country, the smaller your country easier to defend its small borders. One of the problems with Poland was it had a huge border to defend. Don't even bother with it, you have the cheek to abuse the French and the Americans, but you have respect for Belgium, that's a joke. Poland had one of the worst forces in Europe and it held both Germany and Russia off for 5 weeks, and had one of the most well organised resistance forces in the war. 
Belgium and Denmark didn't do anything. 
No, Denmark and Norway lasting out the same length of time doesn't mean you tar them with the same brush. Many Norweigans carried on the fight and helped our commandos in Norway. 

You maybe should look at how a war is fought, and look how quickly their government, then their people collapsed. I cannot believe you have the cheek to abuse the French, who throughout the war had the French Resistance, the Free French coming over to Britain and others going to Russia flying for the Russians into combat with the Tri red white and blue on their spinners. The many French helping POWs escape. What did the Belgians do? 18 days...what's 18 days..nothing. The French lasted 6 weeks, and that wasn't even all of France since the Vichy French supported Germany. 

You're all jokes if you think the French were useless then go on about the Belgians and Danish being helpful. Hahaha


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

And NAZIs hate the KKK, learn a little first please.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

War isn't only fought in the air..it was the panzers that won it for the Germans, fast, powerful strikes. Air support was needed, but if you've actually read up on Fall Gelb then you'd see the impact the French planes had on German strikes. You try and protect Belgium by saying they only had a few planes, they had plenty men and machines, plus the support of the British and the French. If the French and Belgians didn't collapse, the British wouldn't of had to pull out and it might have been over in 1940...Belgians were useless.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

Nice siggy by the way, what was that 1st May 1940?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

bit of a change in your tone there...............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

plan_D said:


> It's funny how you talk about the Dutch SS, then go on about the Danish in the same subject. Dutch isn't Danish. Stick to one country. The Dutch SS was part of the German army, and fought against the Allies in Operation Market Garden.
> There was a British SS, made up of 15 British POWs, there was a British Facist Party, the Black Shirts, 40,000 supporters. This means, what? Nothing because Britain was never taken.
> 
> The Danish were surprised, and they gave in straight away. 1900 isn't 1940. The Russians were surprised in 1941, lost almost all of their army, airforce and tank force within a few months. Surprised isn't any excuse. The Belgians, and Danish didn't even get hit hard, they were distraction strikes, it was the British and the French that felt the worst of the blow.
> ...



  I can't actually believe you're still coming out with this nonsense!  

The smaller the country the easier it is to defend!   

How about this one? the smaller the country, the smaller the army and the easier it is to overrun - did that make any sense to you?  

Belgium wasn't a distraction - if you knew anything you'd know it was important stratigicly - hitler was stupid but he wouldn't waste all that effort, equiptment and manpower in Belgium to 'distract' the French (who were a joke to Hitler and understandably so) and the BEF (which was so bloody useless it got kicked out of France trying to help the French of all people who were well beyond help at that point) I mean what the hell was he trying to distract the French from? the fact that they were doomed? he should've told them! that way they could've run away quicker and he could've occupied it in a day!  

I never said the Belgians were 'helpful' I NEVER said that... i never even said they were very good fighters all i said was they TRIED and they FOUGHT hard and never surrendered when they so easily could have...they earned my respect for their effort...if the British had lost the Battle of Britain would you say they deserved respect? you probably wouldn't but anyone with any sense would say "of course they do - they fought bloody hard and at least they tried" 

France lasted six weeks because of the size of the country and because they had the BEFs help...without those factors they wouldn't have lasted anywhere near that amount of time 8) 

For you to say any of these countries (except France) were useless truly shows how foolishly judgemental you are...you may know alot about tanks and i'll take my hat off to you for that  
and i mean no offence but you clearly know fuck all about the Belgian war effort mate


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

> The smaller the country the easier it is to defend!



not, true, as they're smaller, they wouldn't have a big army, so if anything, it makes it harder to defend...............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Exactly, hes just talking...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

and what allot of talking it is................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Do YOU think the Belgians deserve respect?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

very much so..........................


----------



## Maestro (Apr 14, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I can't actually believe you're still coming out with this nonsense!
> 
> The smaller the country the easier it is to defend!
> 
> ...



Well said, Bronzewhaler82!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

"for sale, one Freanch rifle, never used, only dropped once......."


----------



## Maestro (Apr 14, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Danish were surprised, and they gave in straight away. 1900 isn't 1940. The Russians were surprised in 1941, lost almost all of their army, airforce and tank force within a few months. Surprised isn't any excuse. The Belgians, and Danish didn't even get hit hard, they were distraction strikes, it was the British and the French that felt the worst of the blow.
> You go on about size of country, the smaller your country easier to defend its small borders. One of the problems with Poland was it had a huge border to defend. Don't even bother with it, you have the cheek to abuse the French and the Americans, but you have respect for Belgium, that's a joke. Poland had one of the worst forces in Europe and it held both Germany and Russia off for 5 weeks, and had one of the most well organised resistance forces in the war.



 

Hey buddy, wake-up!

Yes the Russians were surprised, they hadn't any technological adventage, it's true. But they had a f***ing big army, with a f***ing leader (Staline) and a f***ing weather.

The reason why the Germans were not able to take the Russia is that they were "surprised" by the cold (very cold) Russian winter. This combined with the size of their army made a deadly match! So don't tell me surprise isn't an excuse.  

An other thing: you're wrong concerning the size of the country. The smaller the country is the smaller his army also is. So the easier the *BIG *German army will conquer it.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Exactly 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

wow, plan_D's really slipped up there


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

not like him................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

well, everyones entitled to a mistake once in a while 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

some more than others...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

Slipped up? Hahah. So, now you're all thinking that it was only Belgium that defended it's homeland? There was no BEF or French forces on the Belgian border? Well there was, so that's your 'small army' out of the window. 
Where do you think the BEF was? It stretched over the Belgian border with France, into the Ardennes, and onto the Belgian border with Germany. Belgium was strategic? Hahaha. No, never looked at the German invasion plan, have you? 

The belief of the French, British and Belgian forces were that this war would be the same as World War 1 where it was a slow moving trench war, mostly in Belgium. The Germans would never attack the Maginot Line head on (this part they were right). 
There fore they placed 800,000 French on the Maginot line and spread the rest of the forces (Belgians, Dutch and British) across the North of the Line, and to the East bordering with Germany, and France. The weakest point of this long line was in the Ardennes, as it was not believed that an attacking army could transverse this area effectively (How wrong they were). 

The German plan, on the other hand was one of fast lightning strikes, Blitzkrieg. Which would consist mostly of armour and supporting infantry in APCs, with close air support. Attacks would be to the North, into Belgium as a diversion, and to pin down the Belgians, and Dutch there (which soon collapsed, although outnumbering the attacking forces). 
The main thrust of the attack (including Rommels 7th Panzer division) would drive with utmost speed through Luxembourg, through into the Ardenne forest (in Belgium), and into France as France and the many rivers in Eastern France were the main target, leading to Paris. Also, this was the weakest part of the Allied Lines. Another part of Blitzkreig, (which most people forget) is not just fast armour and air support, but a concentrated strike which spreads behind the enemy fortified lines. As Heinz Guderian said 'Punch with your fist, not your fingers spread' Heinz Guderian for you simpletons, or simply Aviation nuts, was the creator of Blitzkrieg, and the idea on the Wehrmachts tank arm. 
This 'punch' was through the Ardennes, and spread quickly into France bypassing Belgium. It then spread behind the lines of the enemy, and with the help of paratroopers captured many bridges over vital rivers. Then, in co-ordination with the forces that had punched through the Ardennes, a frontal attack on the 800,000 strong Maginot Line from Germany occured, collapsing the line as a portion of the forces already in Germany broke off and attacked the line from the back, crushing it. The forces that attacked Holland moved swiftly into Belgium creating a three pronged attacked. As the British had been moved further north in response to the German attack due to the attack on Belgium and Holland a few days prior to the attack on the Ardennes, they were left moving but were the only force there capable (through brilliant command skills) to perform a decent counter-strike taking back two cities (Useless were they? I will give the names, if asked). Until realising that the Belgians and French were proving no help, they left the cities under strong German, armoured and air pressure and began making a quick retreat to Dunkirk with Rommel in hot pursuit, after having his 'holiday' as the Phantom Division in France. The 300,000 BEF (A slight portion of the whole Allied Army involved in Plan D) retreated to Dunkirk and the Royal Navy started shipping them off, the Belgians and French that had also retreated came back, offending the British, then asking to be pulled off as well. Although the Belgians and French were greater in number than the British, it was left to the British to defend the perimeter, exhausted and with a mere 26,000 men. After the Dunkirk Evacuation the Germans, Italians and Spanish defeated France within 6 weeks, many escaped French joined the Free French in Britain or Russia, the French Resistance fighting throughout the war. With the Vichy French in control of South West France, until 1942 (Yes I did say Spanish, who attacked with 2 reserve divisions, that were soundly beaten by the French). When the 120,000 Vichy French in North Africa were practically walked over by the Americans landing in Morocco. 

So, as you will be able to see, the Belgians didn't take the full force of the punch, or maybe you will just keep your eyes shut.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

i say, jolly unsporting what what..................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Slipped up? Hahah. So, now you're all thinking that it was only Belgium that defended it's homeland? There was no BEF or French forces on the Belgian border? Well there was, so that's your 'small army' out of the window.
> Where do you think the BEF was? It stretched over the Belgian border with France, into the Ardennes, and onto the Belgian border with Germany. Belgium was strategic? Hahaha. No, never looked at the German invasion plan, have you?
> 
> The belief of the French, British and Belgian forces were that this war would be the same as World War 1 where it was a slow moving trench war, mostly in Belgium. The Germans would never attack the Maginot Line head on (this part they were right).
> ...



Oh well done, well done! =D> =D> =D> =D> 

Blimey it must have taken you ages to copy that out of a textbook  

Despite your 160 page essay which i feel should be handed over to a teacher for marking  

It doesn't change my opinion that the Belgians fought hard and you have no right to get all nasty and question their bravery - you should show some bloody respect  

you can tell me the British fought hard, you can even tell me the FRENCH fought hard but for you to say the Belgians deserve NO respect at all just makes you a


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

As much as you believe I copied that, we aren't all kids, and some have minds of our own. They were all my own words, since you are still in school, I'd advise you write stuff in your own words as well. You get in deep trouble for copying. 
In fact I'm quite happy you think I copied that, but also saddened that you obviously can, or at least believe you cannot create that yourself. 

The funny thing about this discussion is, I never said I didn't respect the Belgians (which you seem to have drilled in your head), I said that the Belgians and the French as armies were useless, for a variety of reasons. This does not mean I do not respect those individuals that fought bravely, I was always stating the nations army as useless, which looking back, you can see that 18 days, and the reasons for British withdrawal were the collapse of Belgium and France. 

I have always said, if you respect the Belgians, you should respect the French, which you don't. Double standards. Your assumptions on many things are disapointing, I thought maybe we could have had a reasonable discussion, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion you do not have the capability to do so. Maybe, you'll prove me wrong. 

If you want my personal opinion, it would have been easier to ask than to assume.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

i dont think bronze is still in school  and no army is useless in truth; cos even if they are bad at least they are putting all their effort in


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

> cos even if they are bad at least they are putting all their effort in



not if their french................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 17, 2004)

Effort doesn't make you any good, you can still be useless with all your effort. 
Amazing double standards for the Belgians and the French, might I add.


----------



## Crazy (Apr 17, 2004)

I agree with plan_D, an army putting forth it's best effort can still be useless. However, it is doing it's best, can't ask for more than that.

And no half-trained army with a grain of pride will turn tail without SOME fight, unless it's strategically advantageous to fall back. It's just a matter of will and training. Either the French weren't trained to fight the comparatively superior Germans, or they didn't have the will to defend France. I'm guessing the former was the case, but the latter is always possible, and in some cases, was probably an occurance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

> Effort doesn't make you any good, you can still be useless with all your effort.



aslong as they put in all their effort, it doesn't matter if they're crap............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

What are you talking about? I simply said they were useless, which with all their effort they were. Fighting bravely doesn't always win the day. 

Maybe the French put all their effort in, you seem to have an easy time abusing them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

yeah but to say their useless is a little OTT


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

Why is it? What did they achieve? Maybe you should stop abusing the French then since they did more than Belgium.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

hey hey, our french abuse is only a joke (i hope anyway) we mean it with no disrespect, no country is unworthy of our respect


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

Ok, it seems a little more than a joke to me. In any case in 1940 France and Belgium were useless, the individuals that fought bravely deserve respect this does not mean I do not respect them when I say the armies are useless because they were. 
The reason the BEF had to fall back was due to the Belgian and French collapse, had they been of some use they might have held on giving the BEF a little more time for resupply and reorganising the defence. 
Even in Dunkirk it was left up to the BEF tired, battered and running out of supply to defend their own back and the French and Belgian evacuating with our Royal Navy. Those 26,000 men stood up to a much larger force even though some people believe the whole Wehrmacht was halted, it was not and they did still attack. 
If the French or Belgians were of use they would have helped the BEF defend Dunkirk, they were better supplied and in larger numbers than the BEF, where was the use in them? To take up room on the ships.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

the french DID help us at dunkirk.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yup, somebody hasnt been watching their BBC2 docudramas recently have they..... 

(sorry lanc  )


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

This was all very good reading! Plan_D I would agree that the National armies were not as a group that affective. The French build that great Fortress Magiono Line (Poor spelling) and thought the next war would be like the last. But the line stopped short of the low countries or the Forest. But in all that the part of the German Paratroops play is overlooked. They had the best combat asualt paratroops in the world. They created the type and mission. As for the Duch not holding out, did not the Germans drop paratroops and combat engineers onto a Duch Fortress and take it with only a handfull of troops? A fortress that was said to hold two major rivers?

The armies might have not been that good, but the men and wemen who fought in the resistance were. How meny RAF and USAAF airman would have been killed or captured if the resistance was not supporting them? 

France desurved to be invaded and over run, but then the Viche government still was horable. Germany should have just anexed it and put them all to work. That still might not have helped. Do we have any French menbers who are willing to support France? I would even take a French-Canadian, though the Quebecers are a little off as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

that was one of the things franch did do well, resistance................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

you're getting like C.C..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

what? How would that be?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

the sunglasses smiley.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

I see, thanks. My smiles are not working. Well they seem to go out a lot, say I am trying to hack the system, I AM NOt, but so I have to rember the differnt codes. 

But I am interested in where your hate for the French comes from? For me they just seemed to give up fast, and then not help out in Dunkurk.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

actually they did help at dunkirk.........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yes, as weve said several times 8)


----------



## Maestro (Apr 19, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> France desurved to be invaded and over run, but then the Viche government still was horable. Germany should have just anexed it and put them all to work. That still might not have helped. Do we have any French menbers who are willing to support France? I would even take a French-Canadian, though the Quebecers are a little off as well.



I'm a French-Canadian and I don't really like French (I mean the French from France). But I must admit that without the Résistance (it may be French Résistance or Dutch, Danish, Norwegian...), our attempt to throw the Germans out of those European countries would have been stoped. I would even say that our attempt would have been useless.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

true, every country has its uses, doesnt necessarily have to be o the frontline 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 19, 2004)

we can thank the wonderous sten gun for aiding the resistance in the countries that had a resistance, they were so easy to make that the resistance themselves could make them! they helped my fellow dutchmen in the quest against our German invaaders


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 19, 2004)

Thanks for the feedback to my early post on this subject - points taken.- I feel that Europe at the time was undergoing a huge miasma of political changes, Fascism, Communism, Imperialism etc., hence alot of the people of these countries were pulled this way that - Whereas the Allies were politically fairly stable, post WWI left huge power vacuums in European countries, old ideas [Maginot Line], against new [Blitzkreig]; alotta folk fought for what they felt was right. French politics were very divided, their Resistance Movement, like the Greeks too, were full of internal strife conflict, which certainly didn't help the Allied Cause any.- After reading the posts to this point, I see how the Swiss sitting in the middle of it all developed their own autonomy and defensive network, which seemed to work for them, even thru till today.- And today, the Allies are still sorting-out despotic leaders, genocides and extremists around the globe!- The United Nations were born outa WWII, to help sort-out conflicts, and Patrotism to one's country is a fine thing, but Man has Historically fought over Land, Race Religion - Today, you could probably add 'Haves Have-nots and Corporate Greed' to that ...So, WHAT IF all that conflict of WWII didn't teach us anything - WHAT IF we've gotta have yet another scrap to sort it all out....C'est la vie??!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

> we can thank the wonderous sten gun for aiding the resistance in the countries that had a resistance, they were so easy to make that the resistance themselves could make them! they helped my fellow dutchmen in the quest against our German invaaders



Yep, the sten is a great gun, it can be dismantled into only a few parts and it was highly versatile 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2004)

In what context does the Sten warrant being a great gun ?- Because they were used by partisans in number, or their firepower, and whadda ya mean by versatile ????- Sounds like a 'fashion statement' !


----------



## plan_D (Apr 20, 2004)

I simply said the Belgians were useless as an army. 

The French didn't help at Dunkirk, wait, yes they did the last day they decided to give those 26,000 back up. 

The French resistance was good, and it did save many people that's why I got pretty sick of people abusing the French although their army was useless. 

The Maginot Line was good, if it had stretched further north to border Belgium as well. The German paratroopers captured bridges which would have been pointless had the Panzers not been able to break through to support the paras. 
The line only got beaten when the very clever Germans crushed it from two sides, which you can see if you look at my previous post about the German invasion. 

The Sten was a good gun for the resistance it was easily concealed, 9mm and very effective weapon.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

hmmmmm, i still think useless is to strong a word, perhaps a poor army, but not useless


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

> Yep, the sten is a great gun, it can be dismantled into only a few parts and it was highly versatile



while that is true, they were produced so quickly the weilding was very poor, some times they would fall apart if you dropped them, not good.............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2004)

Dropping any gun isn't advised, so it's not that big of a problem in the hands of someone with a slight idea.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

acidents happen................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 21, 2004)

The Sten, was just that, cheep, and simple to use. The could be made onsite, as said before and even brocken down to be smuggled anywhere.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Yeah, in other words it was great because it was cheap, manufactured easily, VERY basic blow-back mechanism, plenty of 9mm ammo around and most useful in that it was easily concealable, and ONLY useful in close-quarter combat - most redeeming was the mags were easy to load, 30 plus odd rounds.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 22, 2004)

You say that as if it has nothing when you listed many great elements to a gun. 'ONLY close quarters' perfect for jungle and resistance fighting. In a jungle you wouldn't want a huge Enfield Mk. 4 single shot rifle with excellent range because in a jungle you don't see your enemy until you are right on top of him. Although the British decided to send Enfields out to Burma, proof of how smart they were...


----------



## Andrew (Apr 22, 2004)

Several Facts about the German Invaision of France and the Low Countries .

When the BEF first landed in France the troops were ordered to dig defensive trenches, along the boarder between France and Belgium, but at the same time discussions were ongoing with the Belgium Government, about reconoitering the land to see if there were any good defensive positions in Belgium, because the Britsh and French Plans had their Armies moving into Belgium to counter the German Invasion, but the Belgium Government said no, because they did not want to upset the Germans, over issues of their neutrality.

When the German Invaision happened the Belgium Government, asked the British and French Governments to send their troops into Belgium, 

Allied troops then advanced towards a highly trained and Mechanised German Army, with vast Air Support compared to the BEF and French Armies, without the use of a previously prepared defensive system, at which point troops and transport were caught out in the open, beacuse the Belgium Boarder defences had already been broken through. 

The Allied Armies held on for a day or two , but then the Germans broke through on the left had side of the BEF (The Belgium Army) , and they subsequently broke through on the Right hand side of the BEF(The French Armies) causing what is now known as the Race to the Channel Ports.

British Senior Officers were sceptical about the advance into Belgium any way as the thought it might be a trap, the thinking at the time was that they should stay where the trenches were , so that they could hopefully hold up the German advance long enough for the front to stabilise , and end up being like the First World War , where you had long periods of stalemate in trench warfare.

Montgomery who was GIC of one of the British Divisions , was very sceptical about the advance into Belgium , and he had his soldiers practicing a withdrawal under fire. Which his Division ended up having to do, while under attack by 3 German Divisions , and this withdrawal was completed succesfully. 

After several days of hard fighting the Belgium Government ordered a ceasfire of all their troops , and surrenderd to the German Forces, the Gonvernment having already been evacuated to Britain. 

This caused a major problem to General Allenbrooke as he had to fill the hole made by the surrender of the Belgium Forces, so consequently the length of the front covered by the BEF shrunk. and of course after the collapse of the French Forces, you ended up with BEF and some French Forces fighting side by side conducting a slow withdrawal to Dunkirk. 

The British Forces did after the Germans had broken through on the right hand side of the BEF, stage a counter attack, but due to there not being enough troops available , they could not hold onto the positions they had taken and retreated back to the BEF Lines, this counter attack worried the German High Comand, and it was responsible for Hitler giving the order for all the German Tanks to stop where they were, when the BEF could have been cut off from Dunkirk and rescue, it was also responsible for the German High Comand to broadcat this message to all Troops "Beware The British they have Teeth".

And as you all know the BEF weere rescued succesfully at Dunkirk, and a few otherplaces along the Channel Coast .

Lord Gort was in comand of the BEF and I think Lord Allenbrooke was 2nd in Command.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2004)

back to the sten, has anyone seen the way commadoes were trained to fire them , it's to hard to explain but very funny to whatch................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

I served 4 years in our Regular Force Army, and my Instructors were ex-Vietnam SAS. I'm not a fan of Enfield's particuarly, but they were fine rifles nonetheless, but heavy - Stens are only accurate for about 20-25 yards and OK for urban scraps, but in the jungle I'd much prefer something with range and firepower, like a Bren [- it's also my lady's name, short for Brenda], and their rate of fire is about 550 rpm.- However, the Sterling-Patchett would be a good choice, although they came later in the War. The Mk.5 is a silenced version, 600-700 rpm cyclic rate, an effective range of 75-150m. They were WELL made, unlike the Sten, inter-changeable mags although the Sterling's was better, having a twin-roller feed that took 34 rounds- We used to line up the bullets on a flat [clean] surface and just stab the magazine along the bullets to load up...real quick. Their fire-selector was close to the thumb on the grip which made their use much superior. I always prefer silenced firearms, it makes you harder to detect, particuarly in the bush, but the breechblock in both weapons were heavy, like the recoil, the Sterling 5 was a bit lighter,about 14oz, but that's about all you can hear with the Sterling, the block clunking away when you fire- 9mm's make quite a mess, not quite the meat-chopper .45 Thompson's, but not far off....


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2004)

Technically, you are supposed to put the stock into your stomach/hip and cup the barrel below the magazine, and if your right-handed, grip the handgrip, your right thumb can flick the fire selector [ presuming you've already cocked-it] and pull the trigger. It's recomended to fire in short bursts only, because holding it in this fashion eliminates it's tendancy to pull-up and away- They have a hunky recoil, the Movie pose of spraying lead holding the banana mag is in fact hard dangerous to do, and not as accurate...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

hehehe bannana mag.... that sounds ridiculously funny, and btw were you ever involved in any fighting gemhorse?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2004)

My Grandfather was in Burma, and on countless occasions he complained about having the Enfield, as did many of the people out there. He became part of the Chindits and was one of the people in his group to have a Bren, which he loved, and always fired from the hip to rip the jungle apart. 
Keeping silent didn't matter once the fighting started. A Sten gun would have been more ideal in Burma than the Enfield, it's accurate, powerful and has great range but range doesn't matter in the jungle, and it's huge and heavy. 

The Sten was never designed to be used in open battle ground but it was good for Jungle, Resistance and Urban warfare, a great room clearer, apparently. 

If you want the best gun of the war it was the STG.44 without a doubt but the Allies closest to an assualt rifle was the M1 Carbine.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

by gun do you mean infantry rifle?, 'cos if mean any gun, it's gotta be the 88mm...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

It depends on how you define the word gun, I was refering to a personal firearm, saying 'infantry rifle' would be wrong since not all were rifles and the STG. 44 was an assualt rifle, the worlds first assault rifle. 

Secondly, there were three 88mm cannons in the Germans arsenal, which '88' are you refering to? I'm just trying to be awkward here, it was a great gun. Although it was matched by the British 17 pdr which was used on the Sherman Firefly, certain variants of Churchill, Archer SPG and a few other British tanks. 

The British Flak 3.7 inch also matched the Flak '88' but was unable to be used in the AT role since it lacked the simple manual aim sights since it was believed they would be useless on a Flak gun, and only fitted them with automatic sights.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

No , I wasn't in combat , my service was 1972-76, post Vietnam , which our chaps got caught up in, but some of my NCO's were SAS Maori guys and they knew their stuff- My favourite rifle was the Belgian FN SLR, and the Heavy-barrelled machine-gun version, the then type Bren. While I agree Stens were handy in the context you describe, the way we were trained was to initiate ambushes, not be caught in them, and SLR's were excellent reliable .308's that gave you good range and hitting power. Some of our guys did prefer M16's, but they're not all that hardy in the bush by comparison. The shock-power to the body of a .308 will break bones just passing by through the flesh, let alone the bigger exit wound. M16 .223 travels faster and goes right through, unless it hits the vitals, but wounds can be more survivable. Our instructors weren't that fussed with Stens, but they did prefer to operate as soundlessly as possible- Some of the Maori guys took a penchant to the Gurkha Kukris knives if they could get them...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

the 76mm in the sherman was pretty effective.................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

Well the M3A4 (76W) matched the T-34/76s and T-34/85s they met in the Korean War. 

Gemhorse, I can't argue with that, the SLR is one of the best rifles ever. My father was in the RAF (Aicraft Technician) from 1970 to 1994 and was in Northern Ireland during the big times of the IRA, in Falklands and the Gulf, also was one of the last to use the SLRs. He always said, and always will say his love for the SLR, powerful hitting 7.62mm. Effective range is recorded at 1500m when on the M-16 it is 400m but this is a simple outline you can achieve different results.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

i kinda like the SMLE..............


----------



## brad (Apr 26, 2004)

hay are we on about aicraft or tanks hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

neither, guns............


----------



## brad (Apr 26, 2004)

why not get a gun site then hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

'cos this isn't a strictly aviation topic, it's for any "what if"


----------



## brad (Apr 26, 2004)

ok what if the yanks had not come in the war what would have happend then


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

no B-17, yey!!!!

oh, and no friendly fire............


----------



## brad (Apr 26, 2004)

i ment on the out come of the war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

we would still have won, it would just take longer, what with all the tea breaks..........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

plan_D, my regards to your Dad, he was an astute man ! - SLR's are my absolutely favourite weapon; we were trained to strip, clean re-assemble them in total darkness, and although I was never in combat, all the exercises we did etc., we came to love it's durability, realiability and firepower. They are still in use in some countries, and far superior to AK47's- I've used both the Russian Chinese AK's and they're heavier and they fire a lighter round...7.62 x 39 - SLR's use 7.62 x 51, alot gruntier... The AK's only advantage was it could fire auto, but it's not how many you fire, it's where you place 'em...- I liked the American M1 and Thompsons too, from WWII...AND, I do sincerely believe the American's entry into WWII was what swung it, and altho' we give 'em a hard-time, it's a friendly thing...They did a great job, friendly-fire and all....


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

I think the outcome of the war would have been still been a victory but all of Europe would have been Red, the Russians would have carried on past Germany and on to Holland, Belgium and France. Then done like they did to East Europe, Britain would have been isolated. 

Europe save Britain would have been Soviet and Britain would have held North Africa and it's interests elsewhere. We would have won but it would have been a lot worse of a victory.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

but there would be less friendly fire victims atleast..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

a soviet europe...... interesting


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

it's as good as soviet anyway...............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

How do you figure that? You do realise the Soviet Union has collapsed and Russia is crippled, right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

hmmm, i wonder what life would be like if russia won the cold war


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

random note: this is already the 10th most popular topic yet it aint been up that long


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

> How do you figure that? You do realise the Soviet Union has collapsed and Russia is crippled, right?



that's what they want you to think.................


----------



## brad (Apr 29, 2004)

i say that the war would of been over a lot qicker if the usa people did not shoot each other


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

Well Russia are doing a very good job of making everyone believe it, or maybe they are just crippled. 

All their Eastern Block countries are now in the EU (As of 7th May) so there's that support gone. Russia is being politically deprived of sales from their oil reserves, their military is a shambles, they're a mere shadow of their former Soviet self, and we should be thankful of that.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 29, 2004)

Theirs was a flawed political system - After a meglamanic like Stalin [ whose crimes made Hitler look like a hairy-assed schoolboy, by comparison] Kruschev led the flawed system into it's gradual disintegration - Whenever a country's people are subjected to what Russia's folk were, it's inevitable -[ You'd think Iraq's people would be happy to be rid of Sadaam, but the ungrateful sods are Arabs, who seem happy fighting each other; Then someone offers a hand, they turn on them...I'd never trust an Arab] - But I hold optimistic hope for Russia, Putin's a strong leader, much needed now to keep capitalist-corruption in check...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 29, 2004)

> Arabs





> Arab


Mate, "Wog" sounds so much better-and funnier-than arab! It's a British word too, made when the Brits were still in what was then Palestine after the war and guarding the beaches and such from the Jews. fucking bastards those (THOSE!!!) Brits for the most part in my opinion, all the Jews had ever wanted was a place to call home, and that's why I have nothing against Jews and sympathize with them-yes, I am a breed of Nazi (i have "Lightning Bolts-SS Logo, but not the Totenkopf, the SS itself, the letters) myself but I dont hate anyone really... I just admire the dedication to a cause (although it was wrong) and the German work ethic and equipment (lets not forget those awesome uniforms  ) Maybe Hitler I hate, but I don't know if I can hate the 2nd most influential person in history after Jesus in my opinion but I kinda do as do most, but at least I understand more and arent as ignorant as most know-nothings who judge him by the Holocaust alone!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

There is a problem here. The Luftwaffe, the RAF, and the Mighty 8th all learned that unescorted bomber missions were the next thing to suicide. What did the Germans have to escort their new-found bomber? The Bf-109 and FW-190 were hard pressed to reach London and none of the Luftwaffe Zerestors could successful tangle with a Spit, Mustang, Lightning, or whatever other Allied fighter you wanna mention. Of course if the Germans had a heavy bomber, maybe we could have seen the P-38 do what it was designed to do . . . there's a what-if for ya


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Germans, 'wog' is a term for Negros, Raghead, or Stani is used for Arabs. 
I agree with Gemhorse though, they are just tribal and they love war. You can't help them, Russia on the other hand could be helped but America doesn't want to because that'll give it a chance of being a superpower again. 

Lightning, in the Battle of Britain 109s were getting over London if only for 15 minutes, over Southern England they could loiter longer. With heavy bombers doing the bombing instead of their Ju88, He111 and such they would have crippled the RAF, and flattened London. 

The most successful raid was by Ju88s, and it destroyed 46 RAF planes. If this was done by larger aircraft with more payload it would have been even more devestating.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

Yeah, I kinda like the way the Jews got their land back...5 million Jews pushing 700 million Arabs back, in the 1960's etc. They worked hard and turned their desert into Oasis;- If you'd just about been wiped-out by genocide, and fought for your old homeland back, you're not gonna let a riff-raff band of Arab countries run you into the sea....there's something about being God's chosen people....But, as the Allies before them in WWII, they had a Job to Do, and if bombing un-escorted at night because daylight was too costly, Britain's nightfighters worked and cleared the German raiders as they sent Bomber Command into Germany in ever-increasing numbers... ' the best form of defence is attack...'


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I know that the Bf-109s could make London, but just barely. Their range would have been insufficeint to handle a running-battle to, over, and from the target. Furthermore, they would have been of absolutely NO use trying to escort German bombers over the Urals to bomb Soviet targets.

Of course, to be honest, the matter of bombing London is largely irrelevant. Bombing populations centers wasn't going to break the Brits, nor did it break the Germans. If, however, Germany had continue to focus on the RAF fields and factories their He-111s and Ju-88s would have gotten the job done. It was a misuse of bombers, rather than lack of heavy bombes, that doomed to Luftwaffe to failure in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

good points, but you also have to remember RADAR, we knew they were coming before it was to late...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Yeah, RADAR was huge. The Germans, in my opinion, shouldn't have given up their raids on the Home Chain stations as quickly as they did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

they shouldn't have given them up at all, we wouldn't have won without it...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I will definitely agree to that.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Can't argue with that...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

Have we reached a concensus? Incredible!!


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2004)

There WAS also the fact that Dr. R.V Jones and collegues developed technology quite early, to 'bend' the 'Knicklebein' radar beams the Germans used as their primary bomb-aiming aid, so that on their large night raids they were bombing paddocks, and post-operation reconnaissance by Ju87P's showed that the desired destruction wasn't happening - they then went on to fast-night 'nuisance' bombing, using Ju88's, Do217's and Fw190's, coming in low, dropping on secondary towns, then diving back over the channel.- This contributed to our developing Nightfighter Force becoming very adept at catching them, then evolving to offensive operations into Europe - German Nightfighters were almost exclusively Defensive....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

> There WAS also the fact that Dr. R.V Jones and collegues developed technology quite early, to 'bend' the 'Knicklebein' radar beams the Germans used as their primary bomb-aiming aid



that was a double-edged sword, on one hand, it made the germans miss their target, but it also started the Blitz when a off-corse heinkel dropped it's bombs on london, which was forbidden at the time...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Of course bombing London ultimately did more harm to Germany (since it kept Fighter Command in the war) that it did to the Brits.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

but then again, we thought a night bombing or berlin would break german morale, but it didn't.......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Yeah, it's interesting that the only nation that capitulated to the bombing of civilan centers was Japan and they were more fanatical than anyone. Of course I think that has more to do with Hirohito being sensable that the populous caving in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it's funny that the germans thought bombing us would break our morale, but it didn't, then we were stupid enough to think that exactily the same thing could break the germans...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I think that has alot to do with the pre-war idea that bombers would completely obliterate cities it a singly strike. Of course, that just about happened with several cities and no one broke down. Maybe the people of 60 years ago were alot tougher mentally than the average person today.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

or more naive


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

From the Marianas, B-29's dropped a total of 170,000 tons of bombs incediaries on Japanese cities before the A-bombs, wiping-out a lot of acreage lives, not unlike what Germany got...it really was a War of Attrition. The A-bomb changed forever, the scale of damage that CAN be inflicted...60 years on, the lesson Man's learned has kept that in perspective...so far...IMO, the generation of 60 years ago were tougher...


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

Of course they were, do you think that the average 19 year old today would be able to run up that beach on D-Day? From what I've seen they'd just all start crying, but then again no one knows how you'd react. 

Secondly the 'Human Rights' and 'Anti War Protestors' would be asking for the country to give in if it got bombed to that extent. I mean, there were even anti war protests against the Falklands War...WE WERE DEFENDING OUR OWN LAND!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Exactly. I don't think people (in general) today are psychologically tough enough to stand up the the devestation of WWII. And most of them probably think it's always been that way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

but then again the soldiers were fighting for king and country, i doubt they would be the way they were any other time, and amazingly only 2% of soldiers actually WANTED to shoot anyone, like i say, most only did it because they had to...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Hey, we weren't fighting for king and country! But point well made.


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2004)

plan_D said:


> Of course they were, do you think that the average 19 year old today would be able to run up that beach on D-Day? From what I've seen they'd just all start crying, but then again no one knows how you'd react.
> 
> Secondly the 'Human Rights' and 'Anti War Protestors' would be asking for the country to give in if it got bombed to that extent. I mean, there were even anti war protests against the Falklands War...WE WERE DEFENDING OUR OWN LAND!



To say the truth, Plan_D, I think "Anti War Protestors" would protest even if London was dirrectly attacked. (I said "London" because you're English, but it could be any other important city in any other free country.)

Sometimes, I even think those b***ards are willing us to become a "dictatorial" country. I heard about a demonstration in Québec (the city), in 1939. The Nazi Party organized a demonstration to protest about the Canada going at war. They were walking trough the streets of Québec, in brown shirts and saluting Hitler. Those sons of b*tches were saying that it was not "our" war. "It was not our war ?" Sh*t! Our navy sank a German submarine in the Saint-Laurent River, in 1942, only 3 years later ! Don't tell me it was not our war !


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The same thing was going on in America . . . until Pearl Harbor.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

We had 40,000 fascist black shirts here but they were soon told to shut up in 1939. These days protests would be rampant, it is ing that these people don't even respect their home country enough to be willing to defend it. 
Falklands is the closest thing in history of a perfect example, Falklands is British land and they protested against us defending it against the Argentinians. It happened in 1982-3 for the people who don't know, I've encountered many Americans who have no knowledge that war ever occured.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

i'm a bit young for that really, but you've made good point, i would be willin to fight for my country...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

People today are far too pacifist. I am by no means saying that war is a good thing (my reading on WWII has taught me that it is absolutely horrible, even when justified). Nevertheless, there has to come a time when enough is enough. I'm afraid we may be living in a generation of Neville Chamberlains bringing "Peace in our time." HA!


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Yes, I feel we are. Although WW2 was the bloodiest war ever, as the great Sun Tzu said "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way (Tao) to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed"


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

i dont think id be willing to be a soldier or anything, id be part of the "brains" back home, designing planes or something 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I'm sure you would C.C...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

hey, a designer is what i want to be, a car designer to be specific 8)


----------



## Maestro (May 4, 2004)

If my country was at war, I would be the first to volonteer and get enlisted in the army. Just think about it... Having a country trying to invade us... OVER MY DEAD BODY !


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Exactly Maestro...

C.C I'm sure you do want to be a car designer. But there's now a bit more to Aircraft and tanks than weapons, wings and an engine. Well there was more in World War 2 but there's even more now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

i hate jet planes


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

You'd be no good now then. Just get on the damn boat and ship out to war...


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Get on it..let's go!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

that pic doesn't work..............

nice siggy..............

why dount you like jet planes C.C..............

and i would be in the RAF as part of the ground crew...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

It's just a transport ship...

You do realise being in the RAF you will have to defend the aircraft, although that's the Regiments job you'll have to do it as well. My dad was a Technician in the RAF, he's seen plenty of action.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

not if you jion as a dentist, which would b my second choice............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Unless you get sent to a field hospital on the front line, which you probably won't.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i could fight off the enemy with a scapal and people's organs ...........


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Peoples teeth would make a good weapon...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

here's another what if, what if the germans would have had the fw-190 in the BoB.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

That's a scary thought, I think we would have still won. I mean, if they used the bombers the same they were still at a disadvantage. It would have been a lot closer, that is a scary thought though. 

We would have lost a lot more aircraft and men, but by the end of the BoB we were out producing Germany on planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

would it have been as scary if we had the mossie?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

If we had, had the Mosquito we would have been raping them in the sea, in the air, and on their land...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

th reason i dont like jets is cos they have no character at all, the only jets i have a slight interest in are MiG's 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I think jets have a lot of character.


----------



## Maestro (May 5, 2004)

I don't like jets too, but not for the same reason. I don't like them because when you're talking about piloting a jet, you're not talking about the pilot skill, but you're talknig about the computer that is almost an AI.

With the WW II planes, it's the pilot's skill that counts. Now with the jets computer, a 5 year old boy could pilot a F-18.


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I doubt a 5 year old could fly a F-18, it's not always the computer that's controlling the plane. You can never replace the judgement of the human. What about the Blue Angels, Red Arrows and other stunt teams, that's all flight skill. 
The only thing with modern combat is there's no such thing as dog fighting anymore, you just fire off your missiles and head for home. And at the other end you are trying your hardest to avoid it. 







.............


----------



## Maestro (May 6, 2004)

I know that a 5 year old boy could not pilot a F-18. It was only a missed attempt to make a joke about the computer in jets.

But as you said, with the jets you only have to fire a missile then head home. For me, it's not air combat. For me, a true air combat is slipping behind a plane, aim it and fire all guns to shot him down. THAT is a true combat !


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

yup 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

i don't know what your on about, the migs had the least caracter of all the jets, and i don't know how oyu can say a meteor or 262 have no caractor........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

but migs are russian  and heres how i can say that meteors and 262's have no character: meteors and 262's have no character  well, they do have more than most jets but still lag behind piston engined planes


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I think all jets have character, the last dogfighters were the Korean planes. The Mig-15 does have character, the only problem is it had the same character as all other 50s planes.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

The last pure dogfighter was the F-8 Crusader and it saw some service in Vietnam. Of course the French still used it into the late '90s!


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

That's because they suck, the French I mean.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

That should produce a rousing round of agreement.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Yes, it probably will. Although I've never understood why anyone in the world hates the French except us British and the Germans. After all, the French helped America on several occasions, I suppose it's ok to hate the people...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

our hate of them goes back before the 100 years war, which actually lasted 116 years..............


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

we hate the french because they run away at the first sign of danger


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I think it's because America saved the French from the Germans twice in the last hundred years and they so NO appreciation. The next time the Germans take France I say we let them keep it.


----------



## Maestro (May 8, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I think it's because America saved the French from the Germans twice in the last hundred years and they so NO appreciation. The next time the Germans take France I say we let them keep it.



Good idea.

I want to point something out: Germans and British are not the lone ones to hate French. Almost 90% of English-Canadians and over 51% of French-Canadians hates French. It's sounds weird, eh ? Let me explain...

Our hate for French came from the 70s-80s, when Québec (the province) was in a great "Nationalism Revolution". Quebecers wanted to have their own country. And a day (I don't remember the exact year), France's President, Charles De Gaulle, came in Montréal to visit us. The last day of his trip, he publicly spoken on the town hall's balcony, in front of a huge crowd of Nationalists. He said:

"Je me sens comme à Paris le jour de la Libération. Vive le Québec... Vive le Québec LIBRE !"

Translation (it should sounds like this): "I'm feeling like I felt the day of the Liberation of Paris. Long live to the Québec... Long live to the FREE Québec !"

Nationalists were happy as a pig in sh*t and the others wanted to kill him. He was talking like if we were under "siege" by English-Canadians. What a mother f*cker !

So you're not the lone one to hate French. I hate them too.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

I always knew a lot of French Canadians hate the French. When I said the British, I was thinking of the people that sprung out from Britain as well. 
Americans still don't have much right, if it wasn't for them the Union wouldn't have won, and the British colonists wouldn't have been able to put up any fight with the British Army.


----------



## brad (May 9, 2004)

no they run away to much


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

it's supprising you don't hear of many french runners, they could enter their army into a race and win lots of medals............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Sure could, it's a shame really they might have a few decent fighters and they all get tarred with the same brush.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

speaking of the french, on top gear lastnight the french police were urging clarkson to drive fast because he was in an aston martin  and then later on he said "i trust the french..."  (sorry, was so funny just though it was worth a mention  ) he also said "this is what scares the french - shouting at them" 

    8)


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I saw that, classic episode. He was racing in his DB9 to Monte Carlo, against the others who were going by train. It was great. 

They said the French were trying to lead him into a trap...  Like their cars would have caught him in that thing...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

yup  and they tried to get missile lock on a lotus exige with and apache, and the downdraft from the blades literally blew the car across the tarmac


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

And afterwards they did what the Apache really would have done, plus they gladly pointed out that, that 30mm cannon would have just ripped him apart.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

yup  you a car nut by any chance?


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

me is only if so fast if you add wings it would take off


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

about 100 years ago they actually made a car driven by a propellor 6ft in diameter, it could do 60mph!


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

so it couldnt take off


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

no, but still,


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

i saw i picture somewhere of a russian tank with wings so it could glide around..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

post it post it


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

unless your talking about the IL-2, of course


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

There is a car that was built in the 50s that still exists, it's a car and you stick the wings and propellor and it's a plane.

I do like cars, yes. That DB9 was just..well...it was...just amazing. I have been a fan of Aston Martins though, for a long time. The DB7 I thought was amazing, but that DB9..nothing can match it...


----------



## Maestro (May 10, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i saw i picture somewhere of a russian tank with wings so it could glide around..................



A thank with wings ?!? I want to see that ! I wouldn't want to be inside when it lands, though. Think about it : tanks don't have good suspention... It should shake a little bit when that thing hit the ground.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Tanks actually do have good suspension, they have to have good suspension. The Christie tank suspension was one of the best of the war (it's what the T-34 had). 







Is that the tank Lanc?






Doing things like that you have to have good suspension.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

That is a great pic Plan D!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yeah cheers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

yeah, that's the pic i was thinking of, see, and to think C.C. doubted me......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

i never doubted you?  and anyway, shouldnt you be working lanc...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

no, our teacher's been away for ages now, so we get to do nothing all lesson.........

and would the BoB have been as bad if we had the mossie?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

if we had the mossie in the BoB, it would have been over much, much quicker


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

because we would go in and bomb al their airfields.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Would the Mossie have received that much attention? I was under the impression that during the BoB it was fighter production that was receiving priority.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

but remember the mossie was also used as a fighter, with good effect 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Better than a Spitfire? Because that is what it would have to beat out.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

not sure, but it was certainly at least as good as a spit and hurricane


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

The Mossie might have replaced the Hurricane. Of course it would need to show it's self as quick to produce because the RAF needed fighters NOW. But I don't think it would have replaced the Spit in production.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

no it wouldnt have replaced the spit, but it could have been built alongside it,


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Yes, the Mosquito was quick, cheap and easy to produce. The MOD would have accepted it for those advantages, and its brilliant capabilities. It's armament would have been a lot more ideal for taking down the Luftwaffe bombers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

thought so 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Yeah it would have been useful there. What was the Mossie's climb rate like? That's pretty important for an interceptor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

2850ft/minute for the mkVI 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

is that good, i don't know much about climb rates...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

It's not bad. I imagine that would have been close to the contemporary marks of Hurrican, Spit, and 109 (a little lower but close). Plenty of stuff later in the war would have been able to beat that though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but remeber the 111 didn't have a huge ceiling anyway.............


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, the Mosquito would have been ideal for taking down bombers. There altitude wouldn't have been a problem, and four 20mm was more ideal than 8 .303.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I'm not disagreeing with you. The Germans used the Ju-88 to intercept bombers and the Mossie had better performance.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

The Me-110 was a better bomber interceptor though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

The Me-110 was good but it was totally outclassed by escort fighters (even the P-47). A truly effective interceptor needs to have a reasonable chance in a fight with the enemy's escorts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

a good intercepter needs good speed and a good climb rate..............


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Not if you're using British tactics Lightning, with Hurricanes for the bombers, Spitfires for the fighters. 
Me-110s for the bombers, 109s or 190s for the fighters...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Yeah I know that. I had meant to say that the ideal interceptor would be able to do both.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, well the Me-110 had what was needed as an interceptor, and remember before the Mustang the formations were largely unescorted.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well the T-bolts could take the formations to the German border or so and the Lightnings could pick it up from there. The main problem was that there were only 2 P-38 groups in the 8th AF and they could usually only sortie about 50 planes to cover a few hundred bombers against a couple hundred German fighters.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Even then a lot of the bomber formations were unescorted all the way into Germany.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Yes but primarily because there weren't enough Lightnings to cover the entire formation (which could spread for miles).


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, I know but my point is the ME-110 was still good enough to take down the bombers, it was very deadly. Until the Mustang came to Europe.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I would agree with that. The Me-110 did a fine job of shooting down bombers but was no plane to be in for a dogfight.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Well the BoB proved that greatly.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

And the instances where escort fighters caught Me-110s without a 109 or 190 cover.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, so a mutual agreement here then. Move on...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

i know, what if the only planes we had during the BoB were defiants


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I think the Defiant still had the Me-110 outmaneuvered.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Now that's a silly 'what if' but I think we would have lost, just a bit. The 109s would have been laughing all the way to London.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

i know, it wasnt a serious "what if" but just imagine, scrambling defiants to intercept 109's, what a sight


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

The 109 pilots would be so scared; 'No heir kommen dose crappy England planes again ve ar so scared...ho ho ho'


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

we would have won if they were to busy laughing and forgot to shoot at them...................


----------

