parsifal
Colonel
Pat II of II
In fact I would say the germans were better at AFV recovery than the russians. but large numbers of German tanks were nevertheless lost because there was not time to undertake a recovery operation, whereas the ruaasians could often simply leave the tank and recover it later.
Whats your point about near explosions from artillery shells? and individual shell wont set up the compression wave and wont have the destructive power of 8 x 5" rockets landing withing 30 yards of your tank. Rockets with near misses are still only going to be about 5% effective. I dont know how that compares with guns ofr artillery but it suggests the main reason for firing them has little to do with knocking out the tank directly
Why would I label him a liar and a coward? he was a brave soldier, used by the nazis for political purposes but he certainly achieved a lot.
But quoting sources in such a general sense does not do a lot to prove you have a good basis on which to make such claims. Further all the sources you have quoted are German, with no attempt made in your bibliography to achieve balance or look at the contrary view. Bergstrom uses all these sources in his bibliography, as well as looking at soviet sources. In this way i think he achieves a far more balanced conclusion than perhaps you will do by reading the accounts of just one side.
These are all good sources. i have read most of them. Unfortunately they suffer from what most "biographical" sources suffer from.....they are not objective or balanced in their assessments. A
I really am sorry if you have that view of me, but you are wrong. The types of books you read are good for what they are, but the problem is not the books, its the way you are using them. by having such a one sided and lop sided Biliography, you are in fact feeding your imagination and gaining a false view of how the fighting on the eastern front developed.
I would suggest you put some balance into your reading list to try and get some better idea of what was happening. if possible, I would also talk to any survivors of that war that you can. If you have, and still come to the same conclusions, then fair enough. I have gone through that excercise, i can assuere you, and came away with a view differnt to your own. Maybe that makes me biased, but it doesnt make me blind, and it doesnt make me rude. it makes me different to what you think should be so.
4) How effectively alleid rockets worked against tanks is proven by the statistics of their own armies. German on the eastern front discovered that even small bombs had to land very near to the tank to disable it. Actually Panthers and Tigers often were surviving near explosions by artillery shells. Also imobilising a tank is not enough, it still can fire and both armies were expert at recovering
In fact I would say the germans were better at AFV recovery than the russians. but large numbers of German tanks were nevertheless lost because there was not time to undertake a recovery operation, whereas the ruaasians could often simply leave the tank and recover it later.
Whats your point about near explosions from artillery shells? and individual shell wont set up the compression wave and wont have the destructive power of 8 x 5" rockets landing withing 30 yards of your tank. Rockets with near misses are still only going to be about 5% effective. I dont know how that compares with guns ofr artillery but it suggests the main reason for firing them has little to do with knocking out the tank directly
5)Because i have enough with your detractions and insults towards me about not providing evidence i will suggest you some bibliography
a)Aggrersor:Tank Buster vs Combat Vehicle b)Fw 190 , Hs 129, Ju87 ,Bf 110 in action c) Stuka Pilot by Just d) Hans ulrich Rudels Memoirs ( I imagine your answer : He was a liar and a coward)
Why would I label him a liar and a coward? he was a brave soldier, used by the nazis for political purposes but he certainly achieved a lot.
But quoting sources in such a general sense does not do a lot to prove you have a good basis on which to make such claims. Further all the sources you have quoted are German, with no attempt made in your bibliography to achieve balance or look at the contrary view. Bergstrom uses all these sources in his bibliography, as well as looking at soviet sources. In this way i think he achieves a far more balanced conclusion than perhaps you will do by reading the accounts of just one side.
e) Panzer Aces 1,2 3 f) Armored battles of the Waffen SS g) Infantry aces of the eastern front h)Otto Carius memories j)Guns of the Reich k) Luftwaffe weapons l) Eagles of the third reich and quite a few more that i am boring writing .
These are all good sources. i have read most of them. Unfortunately they suffer from what most "biographical" sources suffer from.....they are not objective or balanced in their assessments. A
I write nothing from my imagination. You do have many knowledges but your biasment blinds you and you insult any one with diferent opinion..
I really am sorry if you have that view of me, but you are wrong. The types of books you read are good for what they are, but the problem is not the books, its the way you are using them. by having such a one sided and lop sided Biliography, you are in fact feeding your imagination and gaining a false view of how the fighting on the eastern front developed.
I would suggest you put some balance into your reading list to try and get some better idea of what was happening. if possible, I would also talk to any survivors of that war that you can. If you have, and still come to the same conclusions, then fair enough. I have gone through that excercise, i can assuere you, and came away with a view differnt to your own. Maybe that makes me biased, but it doesnt make me blind, and it doesnt make me rude. it makes me different to what you think should be so.