Could Operation Market-garden Have Succeeded?

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by TheRedBaron, Aug 29, 2005.

  1. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 12:09 AM) [post=45093]Hold the phone Ang. I think you are referring to the use of heavies. [/b]

    No. I think I know the difference in the terms heavy, medium and light bomber, also fighter-bomber, as used in WWII.

    IX AAF, for instance, had the following operational aircraft on D-day:

    Med bomber 624
    Light bomber 228
    Fighter 1487

    By the way, the Germans had nowhere near 8,000 tanks in Normandy.
     
  2. ham and jam 1

    ham and jam 1 Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, the Germans had nowhere near 8,000 tanks in Normandy.[/b]

    Your joking Angie? I got the impression Patton destroyed atleast 7999 all with his pearly white revolvers,
    and not a P47 or Typhoon cab rank in sight.
     
  3. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 05:21 AM) [post=45100](Exxley @ Jan 30 2006, 10:11 PM) [post=45099](jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 01:20 AM) [post=45094](Paul Reed @ Jan 30 2006, 12:09 PM) [post=45068]And indeed Rommel may have said:

    </div><div class='quotemain'>“Son, we have much better tanks than the Americans”[/b]

    But even he would have liked to have numbers on the scale of the Allies, and more importantly the ability to replace them when lost.
    [/b] Paul, the thing you are overlooking is that if it were not for air "supremacy" Rommel would have had more armor than the Allies, not less. It is simple matter of approximating the number of rounds your tanks are shooting and subtracting that number from the Allied tank inventory. They were called "Tommy Cookers" and "Ronson Lighters" for a reason. God bless the men with the guts to sit in them. Must have been a very queer feeling.
    [/b]
    And how exactly would Rommel have had more armor than the Allies ? How many German tanks were destroyed directly or indirectly by Allied aircrafts during the Normandy campaign ?
    [/b] Well, I don't know exactly how to extract reliable numbers. Some places I have seen the P-47 credited with 8000 tanks alone. (...)

    But I have seen many paintings of Tempests and Typhoons diving on armor so I bet you would be surprised at the ratio of kills for even RAF TAC.
    [/b]
    Like Angie pointed out, the Germans didnt have 8,000 tanks in Normandy, in fact they didnt have 8,000 tanks in the whole of Europe at that time.

    And I wont be surprised by the kills claimed by the RAF 2nd Tac: less than 200 kills were claimed by that unit.
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Jan 31 2006, 03:48 AM) [post=45103](jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 12:09 AM) [post=45093]Hold the phone Ang. I think you are referring to the use of heavies. [/b]

    No. I think I know the difference in the terms heavy, medium and light bomber, also fighter-bomber, as used in WWII.

    IX AAF, for instance, had the following operational aircraft on D-day:

    Med bomber 624
    Light bomber 228
    Fighter 1487

    By the way, the Germans had nowhere near 8,000 tanks in Normandy.
    [/b] Well, then it’s less clear what you meant if you claim the allied air support was never developed. The fighter/bomber support was supreme by late 1944 with the systems I mentioned. Rarely would the Jugs ever have friendly fire problems because they are so precise, fly low and can circle to identify targets as well as be lead by ground controllers, whereas heavies were not, so I naturally thought you had to mean heavies.

    Keep in mind that the fighters you listed were mostly Jugs which were mostly used as precision bombers since the Germans had no air patrols. Spitfires and Mustangs were used as primary air cover for the invasion. The precision strikes of the Jugs were the likes of those that took out bridges and heavy armor so that Panzer Lehr had great difficulty in getting that 12 miles to the line to kill the vulnerable soldiers. Same with the 21st Panzer having great difficulty getting to Caen. 21st Panzer, 12th Panzer, or Panzer Lehr (any one) at Normandy Beach on June 7th would have been a disaster for the Allies even in reduced capacity. The Jugs "sang for their supper" those days. The boys who came in on the beaches (the ones that survived) owe their lives to the fly boys even if they go to their graves never knowing it.

    Without air supremacy the Allies would have most certainly lost. Period. End of story. In fact the Germans would have overrun us on the beaches. Normandy beach would be another Somme.

    What’s up with the 8000 tank tally problem? Is that a joke? The Germans produced over 50,000 tanks alone. For the Jugs to have destroyed a total of 8000, it would not have to be at one time. Surely that is understood. Get a tank destroyed, get a new delivery, total number of tanks does not increase but tallies of the kills for Jugs would. Can’t believe folks don’t realize that the lion’s share of replacement tanks would have come to the Western front where we had the armor shooting gallery. A lot of armor was destroyed by interdiction before it even got to the battlefield. I am sure pilots claimed kills of tanks that were destroyed riding on rail cars as they would have been just as effective on those as if they were under their own power. Hit the locomotive, then take your time destroying each loaded car. Swarming in packs, squadrons could rack up numbers in a hurry. It was so bad that the Germans would build a false box cars around flak guns and drop the sides of it when a pilot was on a strafing approach. Rockets would eat up a military train and those are tanks our boys never saw whether they realized it or not.

    The funny thing is in all the analysis of things in WWII, the allies never analyzed the type of weapon that killed the tanks. That’s not a real useful number when you are throwing everything you have at them. Stalin attributed the war on the Eastern front being won by the IL-2 Sturmovik. Was he really that much more astute than allied analysts?
     
  5. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 04:36 PM) [post=45121](angie999 @ Jan 31 2006, 03:48 AM) [post=45103](jimbotosome @ Jan 31 2006, 12:09 AM) [post=45093]Hold the phone Ang. I think you are referring to the use of heavies. [/b]

    No. I think I know the difference in the terms heavy, medium and light bomber, also fighter-bomber, as used in WWII.

    IX AAF, for instance, had the following operational aircraft on D-day:

    Med bomber 624
    Light bomber 228
    Fighter 1487

    By the way, the Germans had nowhere near 8,000 tanks in Normandy.
    [/b]

    The funny thing is in all the analysis of things in WWII, the allies never analyzed the type of weapon that killed the tanks. That’s not a real useful number when you are throwing everything you have at them. Stalin attributed the war on the Eastern front being won by the IL-2 Sturmovik. Was he really that much more astute than allied analysts?
    [/b]
    The funny thing is that they actually did. For instance operational research teams from both the 21st Army Group and Second Tactical Air Force conducted separate investigations in the Mortain battle area and found out that out of the 46 German tanks they investigated, 20 had been destroyed by ground fire, 7 by air force rockets, 2 by bombs, 4 from multiple causes, and 11 by either abandoned or destroyed by their crews.

    Shall I even mention then how stupid is the claim that P47s destroyed 8,000 German tanks (which must be about the overall number of German tanks the Allied faced in Europe from 1944 onwards).
     
  6. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Your original post was deleted becaus eit was in breach of board guidelines. Angie[/b]

    Thanks for the SA style Opernplatz censorship. It feels good to be erased. Mine was a factual jest in response to a sneer

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Please dont give up ! Always good to have some good laugh down here. [/b]
    Exxley

    And Exxley name some French military victories since Napolean?

    in response to:

    </div><div class='quotemain'>If there is something interesting historically speaking in the above sentence, please feel free to enlighten us with. I suspect it's just the usual kind of nationalistic ranting from people who has nothing better to say.[/b]

    I always have something better to say...which after this post may not be here... C'est La Guerre



    And Angie FYI a 6pr AT Team doesn"t have a chance against a Tiger

    re: your post </div><div class='quotemain'>Incidentally, according to one of Gerry Chester's posts on this board, the British 6 pr could be effectively used against a Tiger, although not the front armour[/b]

    Let me give you an example from real history from a Veteran I know, he's 83 and still runs a backhoe. he does some contract work for me.

    A big grunt from a diesel and on it came. It looked like a furniture van with a telephone pole sticking out.

    One crew panicked and fired their 57mm gun at the Tiger. This gave their position away and the Tiger without firing a shot simply ran over the crew...The next team fired at the tank since now it was in range. The round didn't penetrate and the tiger ran over the second gun and sprayed machine gun fire killing the crew. I said so what did you guys do? Ernie said we threw smoke and ran like hell. Two of the three At positions were annihilated and the third neutralized. That's how effective a 6pr=57mm is.

    I am still interested in Gerry Chester's(I am not familiar with him) anticdotes please post them about 6pr and in what field instances they occurred.

    Perhaps Sapper can shed some light on 6pr effectiveness. Since I have guessed from glancing at posts that he is a veteran...Thank you for your service Sapper as one of the Greatest Generation. I always enjoy listening to Veterans talk about their experiences of WWII. From friends at the Imperial War Museum to making the awful mistake of playing darts for pints with a Sgt who served in Malaysia, at a Henley Pub.

    Perhaps already posted, I would be interested in what unit, rank, gunner, airborne, tanker, actions you fought in Sapper and may be why you don't seem to like Yanks. Keep in mind I'm second generation English. And yes Exxley I am part Norman. My aunt lives in France. :)
     
  7. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (Herr Oberst @ Feb 1 2006, 05:06 AM) [post=45132]</div><div class='quotemain'>Your original post was deleted becaus eit was in breach of board guidelines. Angie[/b]

    Thanks for the SA style Opernplatz censorship. It feels good to be erased. Mine was a factual jest in response to a sneer

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Please dont give up ! Always good to have some good laugh down here. [/b]
    Exxley

    And Exxley name some French military victories since Napolean?

    in response to:

    </div><div class='quotemain'>If there is something interesting historically speaking in the above sentence, please feel free to enlighten us with. I suspect it's just the usual kind of nationalistic ranting from people who has nothing better to say.[/b]

    I always have something better to say...which after this post may not be here... C'est La Guerre
    [/b]
    Oh I see. Really interesting indeed. Right on topic I might add. I also suppose there must be something really enlightning to praise or sneer at one nation's legacy by looking at its military record. Especially while sitting bravely behind one's keyboard.
    And btw, the proper spelling is Napoleon, not Napolean.
     
  8. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    </div><div class='quotemain'>And Angie FYI a 6pr AT Team doesn"t have a chance against a Tiger
    [/b]

    You are possibly not aware that British infrantry Battalions had APDS ammunition issued for their 6-pounders from the Normandy campaign onwards. This was capable of penetrating a Tiger.

    I am happy to be corrected, but I believe this ammunition was not issed to American units equipped with the 57mm.
     
  9. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (Herr Oberst @ Feb 1 2006, 04:06 AM) [post=45132]</div><div class='quotemain'>Your original post was deleted becaus eit was in breach of board guidelines. Angie[/b]

    Thanks for the SA style Opernplatz censorship. It feels good to be erased. Mine was a factual jest in response to a sneer

    [/b]
    We are not free to say exactly what we want on this forum. It has to be in accordance with board guidelines, which you can access via the top left of the board. Any post which breaches the guidelines is liable to be deleted.


    (ham and jam @ Jan 31 2006, 12:23 PM) [post=45111]</div><div class='quotemain'>By the way, the Germans had nowhere near 8,000 tanks in Normandy.[/b]

    Your joking Angie? I got the impression Patton destroyed atleast 7999 all with his pearly white revolvers,
    and not a P47 or Typhoon cab rank in sight.
    [/b]
    Sorry, I forgot about these. Did Patton have some APDS revolver rounds specially made?
     
  10. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    OK Oberst I will post a bit of info. later today.
    Sapper
     
  11. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (Paul Reed @ Feb 1 2006, 08:49 AM) [post=45142]</div><div class='quotemain'>And Angie FYI a 6pr AT Team doesn"t have a chance against a Tiger
    [/b]

    You are possibly not aware that British infrantry Battalions had APDS ammunition issued for their 6-pounders from the Normandy campaign onwards. This was capable of penetrating a Tiger.

    I am happy to be corrected, but I believe this ammunition was not issed to American units equipped with the 57mm.
    [/b]
    I don't have time to track this down today, but Gerry Chester (a long standing member and a tank veteran from Tunisia and Italy in WWII) posted details a while back of Tiger tanks knocked out by 6 pr equipped Churchills in Tunisia. Also, via his North Irish Horse website, he posted an official table from 1943 showing the armour penetrating power of the 6 pr (non-APDS) and the armour thickness of the Tiger, taken from captured specimens. It shows quite clearly that the 6 pr could penetrate some of the Tiger's armour, but not frontally. This was valuable information, which would have allowed gunners to aim effectively.

    Don't be too surprised. I saw some photos of a M1A1 Abrams in Iraq which had clearly been penetrated by a projectile of 20mm or less. I would not have blieved it, but it happened.
     
  12. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Oberst, you enquired about my company, and where I served. Also, why I dislike Americans?
    My Company? 246 Field Company. Royal Engineers. Eighth Brigade. Third British Infantry Division. A fighting division of great age. Known as “The Iron Division” or more commonly “Monty’s Ironsides”

    The Company was an RE Assault company, tasked with opening up paths from the beach to the road beyond on D Day. “Sword”

    To do this, the company had 35 pound Beehive explosive charges to remove any enemy concrete defensive positions or gun posts, With mobile flame throwers if required.

    Organised into Three Assault “demolition teams” and Assault mine clearing teams. They were tasked with getting the paths off the beaches (Queen red and Queen white) to the lateral roads, no matter what, or who. All the tasks were successfully achieved. (What a great shame the Americans did not have the same teams) Bloody Omaha would not have happened.

    From Sword onwards we took part in every battle, the only Div to do this. They also suffered the highest casualty rates of any div. From Pegasus bridge, Caen, Goodwood, Vire, Falaise, all the way through to Nijmegen. Market Garden. Eventually Bremen after my departure.

    Wounded twice, Near Vire, and again if Holland where my war finished, and caused a 100% war disability.
    The Americans? My very good friends. I have numerous friends in the USA some that have travelled here, and sat at my table and had lunch together. Many friends.

    I fought alongside the “Yanks” In Normandy and we got on very well, great friends and comrades in arms.
    What I do object to is the younger generation publicly running down (on this site) the name, and the reputation, of the many old friends we left behind. For me that is downright ignorant. And unforgivable.

    “From the fields of Normandy I bring back many memories. Beneath them I leave many friends”

    It is a fact that “Monty’s Ironsides” saw more action than any other division in Normandy. British, Canadian, or American. If you are in any doubt I recommend the book written by Norman Scarfe entitled “Assault Division” A man that took part in those battles.

    Two British Divisions landed on D Day Third British on Sword. Fifty TT (Tyne Tees) Division on Gold, Canadians a little later on Juno.

    Contrary to popular belief the British took on the most heavily defended landing area in Normandy. Bar none, If anyone is on doubt? look at the defensive positions facing Sword, Nowhere in Normandy were there anything approaching this depth of enemy defences.

    As to the landings? Again we paid a higher price. But we were “organised”

    The reason that I continue to post at the age of 81, and severely war disabled, is simple. It serves to keep the memory alive of those that paid the ultimate sacrifice for all that the younger generation enjoy today.
    Sapper
     
  13. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (sapper @ Feb 1 2006, 05:39 AM) [post=45147]I fought alongside the “Yanks” In Normandy and we got on very well, great friends and comrades in arms.
    What I do object to is the younger generation publicly running down (on this site) the name, and the reputation, of the many old friends we left behind. For me that is downright ignorant. And unforgivable. [/b]
    So, to get back at these "younger generation" doing what you call "running your friends down", you proceed to run down the Yank soldiers who fought beside you, died beside you, who were your friends and brothers in arms? I just don't get that. That takes hypocrisy to a new low.

    (sapper @ Feb 1 2006, 05:39 AM) [post=45147]Contrary to popular belief the British took on the most heavily defended landing area in Normandy. Bar none, If anyone is on doubt? look at the defensive positions facing Sword, Nowhere in Normandy were there anything approaching this depth of enemy defences.
    [/b]
    It may have been more defended initially, but because of the hours of delay of your arrival versus those of Omaha, the Navy and Air Force bombed the living dog crap out the beaches before you got there and the higher tide protected your LCT and LCP's from being nailed by the underwater obstacles, and from the high waves that sunk many of the US DDs. Not trivializing the attack but I don't think it was as near intense as on Omaha, not from what I have read. Omaha reminds you of some of the Pacific landings.

    But whatever beach you landed on, you owe the flyboys a debt of gratitude that you were not looking at the barrels of Panzers on and off the beaches. As bad as it was, it could have been worse and a lot worse at that.


    (angie999 @ Feb 1 2006, 04:44 AM) [post=45145](Paul Reed @ Feb 1 2006, 08:49 AM) [post=45142]
    You are possibly not aware that British infrantry Battalions had APDS ammunition issued for their 6-pounders from the Normandy campaign onwards. This was capable of penetrating a Tiger.

    I am happy to be corrected, but I believe this ammunition was not issed to American units equipped with the 57mm.
    [/b]

    I don't have time to track this down today, but Gerry Chester (a long standing member and a tank veteran from Tunisia and Italy in WWII) posted details a while back of Tiger tanks knocked out by 6 pr equipped Churchills in Tunisia. Also, via his North Irish Horse website, he posted an official table from 1943 showing the armour penetrating power of the 6 pr (non-APDS) and the armour thickness of the Tiger, taken from captured specimens. It shows quite clearly that the 6 pr could penetrate some of the Tiger's armour, but not frontally. This was valuable information, which would have allowed gunners to aim effectively.

    Don't be too surprised. I saw some photos of a M1A1 Abrams in Iraq which had clearly been penetrated by a projectile of 20mm or less. I would not have blieved it, but it happened.
    [/b] I don't get this Angie. The biggest knock on the M4s for most of the war was that the 75mm bounced off of the heavy German armor like rubber balls off a concrete wall. How are you going to get consistent penetration with 57mm?
     
  14. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    You are totally intent on trouble. Not for me I will not lower myself to indulge in your little games.
    Sapper
     
  15. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 05:43 PM) [post=45154]I don't get this Angie. The biggest knock on the M4s for most of the war was that the 75mm bounced off of the heavy German armor like rubber balls off a concrete wall. How are you going to get consistent penetration with 57mm?
    [/b]

    The 30mm gun mounted on current British light tanks and some other fighting vehicles is provided with an APDS round and has better armour piercing performance than the 75mm gun in question.

    The size of the projectile is a lot less important in the defeat of armour than the kinetic energy. It would take me a while to track it down, but the relevant equation favours velocity over size here.

    The 75mm gun as mounted on the M4 (and indeed the M3 previously) was not a high velocity gun and was designed primarily for the delivery of HE in the infantry support role. The M4 had an excellent HE shell. It was also provided with anti-tank ammunition, but this lacked the velocity.

    Barrel length is a significsant factor where velocity is concerned. The M3 75mm gun fitted to the late M3 and earlier M4 models had a barrel of 37.5 calibres. This compares with 52 calibres for the 76mm M1 gun fitted to later M4s.

    In addition to having a much more powerful propellant cartridge, the 17 pr fitted to the Sherman Firefly had a barrel of 55 calibres.

    Comparison with German 75mm tank guns is as follows:

    Panzer IV, progressively 24, 43 and 48 calibres (by Normandy, only the L/48 models were likely to be encountered)
    Panzer V (Panther) 70 calibres.

    Going back down the scale in the other direction, probably the best performing anti-tank gun in 1940 in any army was the British 2 pr filled with the Littlejohn adaptor. This fired special high velocity sub-calibre ammunition.

    So, Jimbo, size really is not everything.
     
  16. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (sapper @ Feb 1 2006, 01:43 PM) [post=45156]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
    You are totally intent on trouble. Not for me I will not lower myself to indulge in your little games.
    Sapper
    [/b]
    You started the game sapper. I am the one that took umbrage at it. Remember?
     
  17. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Feb 1 2006, 01:47 PM) [post=45157](jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 05:43 PM) [post=45154]I don't get this Angie. The biggest knock on the M4s for most of the war was that the 75mm bounced off of the heavy German armor like rubber balls off a concrete wall. How are you going to get consistent penetration with 57mm?
    [/b]

    The 30mm gun mounted on current British light tanks and some other fighting vehicles is provided with an APDS round and has better armour piercing performance than the 75mm gun in question.

    The size of the projectile is a lot less important in the defeat of armour than the kinetic energy. It would take me a while to track it down, but the relevant equation favours velocity over size here.

    The 75mm gun as mounted on the M4 (and indeed the M3 previously) was not a high velocity gun and was designed primarily for the delivery of HE in the infantry support role. The M4 had an excellent HE shell. It was also provided with anti-tank ammunition, but this lacked the velocity.

    Barrel length is a significsant factor where velocity is concerned. The M3 75mm gun fitted to the late M3 and earlier M4 models had a barrel of 37.5 calibres. This compares with 52 calibres for the 76mm M1 gun fitted to later M4s.

    In addition to having a much more powerful propellant cartridge, the 17 pr fitted to the Sherman Firefly had a barrel of 55 calibres.

    Comparison with German 75mm tank guns is as follows:

    Panzer IV, progressively 24, 43 and 48 calibres (by Normandy, only the L/48 models were likely to be encountered)
    Panzer V (Panther) 70 calibres.

    Going back down the scale in the other direction, probably the best performing anti-tank gun in 1940 in any army was the British 2 pr filled with the Littlejohn adaptor. This fired special high velocity sub-calibre ammunition.

    So, Jimbo, size really is not everything.
    [/b] Well, I will agree that muzzle velocity is more critical since it can be increased a lot easier than round weight. Force = Mass x Acceleration. So halving the mass is the same as halving the acceleration of the round. But the primary factor is the area for the weight and velocity. This is why shaped charges had so much penetration because it pressure at the point of impact is amplified by its smaller surface area.

    A 17 pounder is basically a 75mm round (76.2mm) and both would have a caliber of approx 3 inches. I really don’t know what you mean by caliber (or calibre as you guys spell it). To me, caliber means bore size which is also what is meant by 75mm and 76mm. The rounds themselves may change but a 75mm gun would not have a caliber of .5 it would have a caliber of 3 (three inches).

    But the Sherman-Firefly (UK) and the Sherman-Jumbos (US) did indeed have longer barrels. Agreed that’s how they can achieve higher muzzle velocities. This allows the round to achieve maximum velocity while in the barrel and use more charge to boot. This is why the 88 was so deadly. But this wouldn’t explain the anti-tank guns. I also agree that the 75mm was better at HE rounds because it was short and could shoot faster (more frequent) did not need muzzle velocity of any significance and not get as hot. But then again, that’s what the US used the Sherman for. They didn’t use them for tank on tank. I am starting to realize that the British doctrine leaned heavier on tank to tank battle and the Americans leaned on air to tank battles. To the US a tank, especially a Sherman was a man, truck, light armor killer. There was supposed to be no heavy armor when they got rolling. If there was they were in a pickle. The British liked to slug it out.

    I agree whole-heartedly on the physics you listed. But the question I have is when did the British have long barrel anti-tank guns? They would have to be towed. They would be too heavy to push. I thought that lower caliber British guns sucked like lower caliber US guns. The US used mostly the 105s for this reason. Am I missing something here?
     
  18. Herroberst

    Herroberst Senior Member

    Sapper, Thank you for your information. I know a combat engineer that was at normandy and later Metz where his war ended. You are both lucky to be alive considering the engineer loss rate.

    I sometimes understand your point about the younger generation.

    Exxley still waiting? (Napoleon)(sp) I do have pencils at my desk. (Goodfellas...Fogetaboutit)

    Angie, Thanks for the info

    </div><div class='quotemain'>Tiger tanks knocked out by 6 pr equipped Churchills in Tunisia [/b]

    a 6pr in a tank is a very different animal than the towed 6pr of Arnhem, The tank can maneuver...Remember we were discussing Red Devils(Airborne AT capability). Significance of how could unsupported Airborne stop tanks.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>The 30mm gun mounted on current British light tanks and some other fighting vehicles is provided with an APDS round and has better armour piercing performance than the 75mm gun in question[/b]

    Check Janes...different size of caliber is irrelevant with modern versus WWII weapons...apples und oranges. As the Germans discovered their 50mm towed was no longer effective and moved toward reequipping with 75mm. So I believe was same for British relying on towed 17pr rather than 6pr as the war progressed.

    But Thanks...those Guys had alot of courage taking on a Tiger with a Cromwell.
     
  19. Max (UK)

    Max (UK) Member

    (jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 07:55 PM) [post=45159]You started the game sapper. I am the one that took umbrage at it. Remember?
    [/b]

    jimbotosome :- If you talk to Brian, show him some respect, dammit. images/smilies/default/mad.gif

    You might not agree with what he says (although excuse me, I think he knows a THOUSAND times more about this stuff than you EVER will), but you can at least start being polite.

    Brian is a Veteran and should get NOTHING BUT RESPECT. If you don't agree with what he says, how about putting over your argument in a less arrogant manner?

    SHOW A BIT OF RESPECT !
     
  20. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Max (UK) @ Feb 1 2006, 06:32 PM) [post=45167](jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 07:55 PM) [post=45159]You started the game sapper. I am the one that took umbrage at it. Remember?
    [/b]

    jimbotosome :- If you talk to Brian, show him some respect, dammit. images/smilies/default/mad.gif

    You might not agree with what he says (although excuse me, I think he knows a THOUSAND times more about this stuff than you EVER will), but you can at least start being polite.

    Brian is a Veteran and should get NOTHING BUT RESPECT. If you don't agree with what he says, how about putting over your argument in a less arrogant manner?

    SHOW A BIT OF RESPECT !
    [/b] First of all, I have never have waged a single assault at sapper. I have called him out for disrespecting WWII veterans and making fun of them for getting caught up in friendly fire, insinuating they were cowards as well as denigrating them with a blanket statements. Sometimes he does this because he doesn’t like that I I believe Market Garden was not a good choice and that I don’t fall over myself when I speak of disagreements with Monty’s tactical and strategic decisions or interferences.

    There are many US WWII veterans that surf the web and like sapper they have pride in their service and have “also” left their buddies on the battlefield. If they Google across Brian Guy’s comments denigrating them then they would take great exception for having their buddies left on the battlefield mocked because they died and themselves insulted as cowards by a soldier of an army they came to the aid of.

    No, Max, you need to layoff of me. Patronizing sapper when he does things like that is by NO MEANS showing respect but rather showing great disrespect to other veterans by condoning this reprehensible behavior. It may be ok with you if someone slanders US veterans, even if they were a British veteran, but it’s not ok with me. It’s all well in good to show respect when civility is the rule but American soldiers deserve the same respect from as well. images/smilies/default/mad.gif images/smilies/default/mad.gif images/smilies/default/mad.gif images/smilies/default/mad.gif images/smilies/default/mad.gif images/smilies/default/mad.gif
     

Share This Page