Jump to content


May 1940. Setting the record straight and what if's.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
302 replies to this topic

Dennis420b #281 Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:19 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostTKoddaL33, on 25 May 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Don't you guys forget those missiles that the Germans made which did work since it was used on the British mainland. They were the designers of future weaponry like the mg42(design later copied) or the first assult rifle(even though it was 9mm) and aircraft similar to the steal bomber/fighter (which was only a wooden model, captured ofcourse).


Nocturnal already pointed out the caliber issue. The MG 42 had a great feed mechanism, but ultimately was only revolutionary in its General purpose function on the battle field. It could be used as a heavy MG on a tripod, or as a light MG on its bi-pod. Before this an army would have to have seperate designs, like the Browning 1919 for the heavy MG and BAR for light MG, or the Vickers and the Bren for the Brits. And as far as that is concerned the MG 34 had already achieved that innovation.



Dennis420b #282 Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 25 May 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

And on that note I step from the conversation lol. I wont debate politics on this forum:-)

The reason being that 2 things divide people more than anything else, the first is politics and the other religion. We shouldnt debate these subjects because what was a civil discussion will turn ugly incredibly fast. 

That being said, I will not neg or positive vote anyone that wishes to ignore my advice.


I understand, but I am a firm believer in the melting pot principle. I dont want to live in a homogenous society where we all have the same ideas. I am a Democratic Socialist similer to Howard Zinn or Senator Bernie Sanders, but I have friends who are libertarians and republicans, heck I even have crack pot Tea Party friends. lol. We need them all. Every one of us have a say, and we should be able to respect that others are different. I bought the snake oil of the (faux) liberal Obama in 2008, but went back to my actual liberal roots in 2012 and voted Jill Stein of the Green party. I know just as many idiots on both side of the spectrum. Again I contest that we in the states need more diversity in our politics, as our society has more than 2 sides to it, so to should our politics reflect that fact with more than turd pile A and turd pile B as choices. First and foremost I am a human just like all the rest. No better, no worse. Oddly enough I will get more upset in a debate about history than politics.



Dennis420b #283 Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:32 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I just thought it would be interesting to hear the perspective from across the pond.

Nocturnal814 #284 Posted 25 May 2014 - 04:39 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:


Nocturnal already pointed out the caliber issue. The MG 42 had a great feed mechanism, but ultimately was only revolutionary in its General purpose function on the battle field. It could be used as a heavy MG on a tripod, or as a light MG on its bi-pod. Before this an army would have to have seperate designs, like the Browning 1919 for the heavy MG and BAR for light MG, or the Vickers and the Bren for the Brits. And as far as that is concerned the MG 34 had already achieved that innovation.

Actually the american m60 and the german mg3 are direct decendants of the mg42. The mg34 was more of a universal design but was far more complicated than the mg42 was, not designed for the mass production that the mg42 was made for. For a gun to remain in active service, even with modification, for as long as the mg42 has it truly must have been exceptional.



something, something, something, dark side...

WidowMaker1711 #285 Posted 25 May 2014 - 05:03 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11926 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 25 May 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Actually the american m60 and the german mg3 are direct decendants of the mg42. The mg34 was more of a universal design but was far more complicated than the mg42 was, not designed for the mass production that the mg42 was made for. For a gun to remain in active service, even with modification, for as long as the mg42 has it truly must have been exceptional.

 

Just like the american M2 .50cal. Been in production since 1918 and still in regular use. Nearly a centurion and still in use. 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #286 Posted 25 May 2014 - 05:38 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostNocturnal814, on 25 May 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Actually the american m60 and the german mg3 are direct decendants of the mg42. The mg34 was more of a universal design but was far more complicated than the mg42 was, not designed for the mass production that the mg42 was made for. For a gun to remain in active service, even with modification, for as long as the mg42 has it truly must have been exceptional.


I would not tout the M60 as a reason to hold the MG 42 in high regard. The M60 at best is an unremarkable design.  The MG 3 is a fantastic gun but more of a clone IMHO. The MG 34 was the first true GPM, and the MG 42 was a continuation of the concept with a nod towards mass production, and serviceability. But it was not really innovative in concept compared to the MG 34.



Schlauen Wolf #287 Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5432 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

The roller ball bearing itergrated into the bolt carrier assembly/firing block is how the germans found that fire rate. Only down side is adding extra machining allows for those tight tolarences to be mucked up- dirt,grime etc to fill those tiny areas. - limits your options

 

   The AK 47 on the other hand,  is a "wonder" of almost zero machining, looser than a goose in the upper receiver-bolt-firing block. Sand/dirt/mud/water- flows right out and it still produces that " distinctive" sound when fired at you........ - running out of ammo only limit, maybe range of engagement also.


Edited by LURKINGPANCAKE, 27 May 2014 - 10:36 PM.

 

                


Party Poison91 #288 Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

I just thought it would be interesting to hear the perspective from across the pond.

Well, vote labour or lib dems if you want to have unrestricted immigration, no nuclear deterrent, having your country controlled by Belgium and taking your army into two wars whilst bleeding them dry.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

A Gaming Stuka #289 Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:08 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 24382 battles
  • 1,053
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

Correct me if Im wrong but the armord tacticks used by both the British and the french was that the Tank was to fight long side the infantry and that most friench an british tanks were better then the early war germen tanks. The brits an the friench also deployed there tanks in to few numbers to do any good. Not saying all friench an British tanks in the early years were good . (sorry about the spelling Im using the internet on my xbx1 )

 


2f07ew9.jpg
 

WidowMaker1711 #290 Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:38 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11926 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostParty Poison91, on 25 May 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Well, vote labour or lib dems if you want to have unrestricted immigration, no nuclear deterrent, having your country controlled by Belgium and taking your army into two wars whilst bleeding them dry.

 

The country is controlled FROM Belgium. But it is a stealth takeover by France and Germany. What you cant do with violence you can complete with politics


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


anonym_gYkaYIfQlKEZ #291 Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:41 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 465
  • Member since:
    08-23-2019

View PostDennis420b, on 23 May 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

But the question still stands... If no country could have done better, than why do the french get a bum rap for surrendering? I am not a big France fan, I just dont see any plausible way that any other country under the same circumstances could have stopped the German attack of May/June 1940.


The French "bum rap" as you call it, was not solely built upon the capitulation of Daladier's government to the German's, but started with Petain's Vichy persuasion to work with the Germans. French forces opened fire on the American troops landing in North Africa until they surrendered at the request of Free French Forces generals. The French were a PITA to deal with during WWII. Ike had to deal with the monstrosity of DeGaulle, whose arrogance was off the charts. France since WWII has lost every major engagement they have been in. They lost their protectorates in what is now known as Vietnam and dragged us into that costly war. France has basically continued to thumb its nose at America for years, which has been perceived as ungratefulness for what we did for them in WWII. The French government continues to make decisions and declarations against America, which even during the 90's prompted the US Congress to try and change "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". It didn't work. Here recently, France reneged on a promise to fly D-Day veterans from the US to Normandy. France has turned tail and dealt in arms with Russia despite the embargo over the Ukraine crisis. There is so much more, but there is a hatred by the French towards America, and there is a disdain by American's towards the French for their ungratefulness towards our sacrifices in bailing them out twice against the Germans. It just continues to get fueled, and grows. Hence the French fighting forces are a joke since they haven't won a war on their own since the German's thrashed them in the 1870 war.



Dennis420b #292 Posted 25 May 2014 - 09:34 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostTexasManny, on 25 May 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:


The French "bum rap" as you call it, was not solely built upon the capitulation of Daladier's government to the German's, but started with Petain's Vichy persuasion to work with the Germans. French forces opened fire on the American troops landing in North Africa until they surrendered at the request of Free French Forces generals. The French were a PITA to deal with during WWII. Ike had to deal with the monstrosity of DeGaulle, whose arrogance was off the charts. France since WWII has lost every major engagement they have been in. They lost their protectorates in what is now known as Vietnam and dragged us into that costly war. France has basically continued to thumb its nose at America for years, which has been perceived as ungratefulness for what we did for them in WWII. The French government continues to make decisions and declarations against America, which even during the 90's prompted the US Congress to try and change "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". It didn't work. Here recently, France reneged on a promise to fly D-Day veterans from the US to Normandy. France has turned tail and dealt in arms with Russia despite the embargo over the Ukraine crisis. There is so much more, but there is a hatred by the French towards America, and there is a disdain by American's towards the French for their ungratefulness towards our sacrifices in bailing them out twice against the Germans. It just continues to get fueled, and grows. Hence the French fighting forces are a joke since they haven't won a war on their own since the German's thrashed them in the 1870 war.


Hmm. Just to be devils advocate, when was the last time the US won a war single handed? And while we are at it, France and Russia have a long history of cooperation. The US is the worlds largest arms dealers/providers so I dont really see why we are entitled to complain. Its a amphibious assault ship (Mistral class), not some cruiser or aircraft carrier. At any rate those excuses have little to do with the negative surrender comments made. Its just more deflection to cloak anti french sentiment. Let me see if I can follow the logic. France sells Russia an Amphibious assault ship, so we make fun of them for having tanks that go faster in reverse or some other comment leading one to believe that the french are surrender happy.... Nope, does not hold up. As far as french feelings towards us, I guess maybe they feel that when we needed them to help take on the British and they helped that we didn't really return the gratitude. During WWI America sold material to both sides, until we violated our neutrality by sending supplies in Passenger liners, and the Germans found out and started to sink them. We come in in 1917 and act like we have won the war for French soldiers who had been fighting since 1914. Or how when the Frnech needed us in 1939/40 we sat back and did nothing. Or maybe it was the 60,000+ french civilians we killed in our bombing campaign to "liberate" them that makes them not care to much for us. And then a half a century latter we start two wars of aggression, invade and overthrow sovereign governments all based on lies, and then we have the nerve to not like the french for not wanting to be involved? Yeah, what (edited) they are. How dare they not bow down to our will and help commit illegal acts of aggression.

Sorry, none of those excuses makes sense. It just sounds like more butt-hurt propaganda.



Dennis420b #293 Posted 25 May 2014 - 09:47 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 25 May 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Well, vote labour or lib dems if you want to have unrestricted immigration, no nuclear deterrent, having your country controlled by Belgium and taking your army into two wars whilst bleeding them dry.

well being from a nation built on immigration (most of my family came from Ireland and Scotland in the 1800s), and growing up in a southern Californian neighborhood where I was a minority, I learned tolerance. why do you need a nuclear deterrent? big expensive weapons that you will never use but pay out the (edited) to maintain. And I would sooner think the EU was being pulled around by the nose by Chancellor Merkel, than by Belgium. Bleeding dry? How about in hock to the Chinese for those two wars? And now our government is actively trying to off its veterans through the bureaucratic delaying crucial care because its cheaper than taking care of them. That's not considering the wholesale peddling away of anything that can be considered "democratic", about our government to the highest bidder. All while the average American is more concerned with who to vote for on a reality show than who is (edited) them in the government.



rainsilent #294 Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:09 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:


Hmm. Just to be devils advocate, when was the last time the US won a war single handed?

 

1812 comes to mind. Spanish-American too. That was such a f'n shame of a war though. All started by one media mogul to make him money. In general though the US "comes to the aid" in wars so it is difficult to win on your own.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Dennis420b #295 Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:15 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 25 May 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

1812 comes to mind. Spanish-American too. That was such a f'n shame of a war though. All started by one media mogul to make him money. In general though the US "comes to the aid" in wars so it is difficult to win on your own.


so the 1890s. Where as my response was to the claim by Texas Manny that France had not won a war by itself since the1870s. 20 to 30 years difference? Once again this excuse does not hold water either.



Dennis420b #296 Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:18 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
I have yet to hear a credible excuse for the negative french stereotypes about them being surrender happy. A bunch of bias, but no facts, and no explanation of how any other nation would have fared better in the exact same circumstance. 

rainsilent #297 Posted 25 May 2014 - 10:54 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 4252 battles
  • 2,967
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:


so the 1890s. Where as my response was to the claim by Texas Manny that France had not won a war by itself since the1870s. 20 to 30 years difference? Once again this excuse does not hold water either.

 

I missed the point of this being an excuse but I know what you are saying. I was only answering your question I quoted as I didn't see the point of the rest. I have already said my part about the original topic and in general agree with you that it is ridiculous but have stated why it happens.


http://forum-console.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/25926-package-fixes-and-suggestions/

My list of suggested package changes. Matthew J35u5 has one as well. I suggest you take a look at his too and make your own suggestions in either.


Schlauen Wolf #298 Posted 25 May 2014 - 11:16 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5432 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View Postrainsilent, on 25 May 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

1812 comes to mind. Spanish-American too. That was such a f'n shame of a war though. All started by one media mogul to make him money. In general though the US "comes to the aid" in wars so it is difficult to win on your own.

1812 comes to mind also.....   its still being fought, only with pens and crushing taxation. The " 202 year silent war " .  imho


 

                


Party Poison91 #299 Posted 26 May 2014 - 10:12 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 25 May 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

 

The country is controlled FROM Belgium. But it is a stealth takeover by France and Germany. What you cant do with violence you can complete with politics

Yep. Third times a charm, eh?


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

WidowMaker1711 #300 Posted 26 May 2014 - 01:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11926 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostParty Poison91, on 26 May 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Yep. Third times a charm, eh?

 

Oh they are certainly on to a winner. 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users