Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 91 to 105 of 105

Thread: Churchill's major blunders.

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by leccy View Post
    Just post some sources with your claims.
    With my Moderator hat on, this is one of the few things you can get banned for on this site - so start posting your sources!
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    samjok you missed the point about the bombers.

    You made a claim no one else built any 4 engined bombers not that they were only built in small numbers. This then calls your whole figures into dispute as you made a definate statement which was not true. There was no statement that other countries produced them but not in significant quantitys you instead chose to say only the USA and UK built them (I did not even go to the length of pointing out Canada built 4 engined bombers as well for the Allies).

    State 'facts' correctly and you may get an easier time. The HE 177 had two engines joined to a common shaft in an absymal way but it still had 2 engines driving each prop.

    How many T34 and KV1 did the Germans encounter in 1941, the vast majority were T26, T28, T35, BT Series. The Pzkpfw VI was in service in 1942 the IS tanks entered service in 1943, alot of lessons can be made in that time (german tank designers did not always take the hints though).

    My reference for the Ships built was the US government who I assume since they paid for them all would know how many they built, you still have not provided a single verifiable source for any of your claims and figures. You provided one source which was a school homework site done by a middle school teacher who did not provide sources either and despite being quizzed many times on it your only answer was

    It is unfortunate that the British site does not include references about the 350 tanks, but I find it hard to believe that it is an invention and that the British military would spend a fortune building a fort and not provide any tanks to counter the invasion, that Percival had predicted would take place first in the north, where the Japanese needed to establish airbases and then in Singapore, where the only fort was built
    You have made numerous claims to support your theorys about Winston Churchill and his blunders (which has led to the thread being derailed as you try to justify with words and no sources except that they are an accumulation of 22 years of Internet and Book knowledge)

    Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references
    I provided sources with my info where justified to counter your claims, you will not or can not provide any.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Official Mod Warning

    samjok
    : I've asked once nicely, pdf27 has asked a bit more sternly since my request for you to post some sources or links (as well as reasonable requests by other posters such as leccy) have been ignored. The third time, like in baseball, will be the third strike and "your out!"

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    And all of this has what to do with Honorable Winston Churchill, and his alleged incompetence and major blunders ? Samjok, you need to return to the topic. ( I asked everyone in Louisiana, and they agree with me.)
    I think you've missed the sub-texts in the topic title, which are "(a)Why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, all their military advisers and commanders, and (b) why samjok could have run the war a lot better than all of them without having to provide any evidence that he could except for responding to direct and detailed questions by launching into a new burst of unrelated and unreferenced and often improbable or demonstrably wrong assertions which nonetheless prove to samjok why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt ......."

    (I asked everyone down at the pub and they all said they agree with me, as long as I keep buying them beer.)
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by samjok View Post
    error
    Only one?
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by samjok View Post
    German tanks in France and in Barbarossa were much inferior to the ones they faced. In France they were saved by the overwhelming air support but in the USSR they had a hell of a time. The few panzers I through IV, and the few tanks from Poland, France, etc, that took place in Barbarossa were quite inferior to the Ts they encountered. The Germans were shocked to find the simplicity and effectiveness of the T-34. The problem with the superior Soviet tanks is that they were left without air support....
    samjok, I'm far from an expert historian, but the above blanket statements and simpleton over-generalizations show that you are just sort of B.S.'ing here. German panzers were not "much inferior" to French tanks in the overall scheme of things. Yes, the French had two very good tanks, but they of course contained fatal design flaws limiting their effectiveness and versatility whereas the German Panzer Mark IV that operated in France during Fall Gelb/Rot was still in service at the end of the War--albeit with upgrades. French tanks like the SOUMA and Char B tended to have thicker armor and the excellent 47mm gun, but were limited in numbers and spread out typically in the wrong places away from the main German effort or "Schwerpunkt". But they also were not designed for intense tank-versus-tank combat nor to compete with the operational intensity the German Heer threw at the French in May 1940. The turrets were small and had an overtaxed, poor French commander doing the jobs of three men. The Char B had a small fuel tank strictly limiting it's operational radius and endurance. And many French tanks were equipped with radios whose batteries could not be recharged in the field making them useless. I suggest doing some reading on the subject like Alistor Horne's To Lose a Battle.

    The Soviet tanks that were "superior" were available in limited numbers at the start of Barbarossa, and Heer troops found some T-34s from the outset. They armor and guns may have impressed them, but since many T-34s broke-down initially due to mechanical teething problems, the Germans might not have considered them much of a long term threat. And when the T-34 achieved reliability, the Germans quickly countered with improved guns and even make a better version culminating in the Panther. I could go on, but I'm growing weary of responding to your poorly researched, factually incorrect and over-simplistic ramblings. Your lack of citations and posted sources is becoming a big problem here...

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    I think you've missed the sub-texts in the topic title, which are "(a)Why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mussolini, all their military advisers and commanders, and (b) why samjok could have run the war a lot better than all of them without having to provide any evidence that he could except for responding to direct and detailed questions by launching into a new burst of unrelated and unreferenced and often improbable or demonstrably wrong assertions which nonetheless prove to samjok why samjok is smarter than Churchill, Roosevelt ......."

    (I asked everyone down at the pub and they all said they agree with me, as long as I keep buying them beer.)
    You are correct, I did indeed miss that inference, though I did notice the "with one hand tied behind my back" addendum.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by samjok View Post
    Sorry but I am not going to provide a long list of references.
    You don't have to provide a long list.

    You haven't even provided a short list.

    Or even a reference at all in most cases.

    Try providing just one reference per assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by samjok View Post
    Incidentally my lousy figures (which I mentioned are in no way exact) seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote and to provide a much better panorama of the imbalance between the Axis and the Allies.
    Your confident assertion about Churchill sending 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR, and your subsequent assertions about what a waste of the tanks this was, is disproved by the references I cited at #64.

    My quoted references and the sources examined to check your assertions are better informed than the sole unreferenced school history site you rely upon for your claims.

    I think that Percival, Bennett, Smyth, and Tsujii which I checked and the sources I quoted at #64 in your words "seem to include more items and to be more complete and balanced than any individual reference you can quote".

    I note that you have chosen to ignore #64, as you do with everything that is inconvenient to your rambling assertions to support your fantasies which shift like the sands of the desert in the face of informed challenges and convert from grains of sand into birds which rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of your assertions and take wing to new fields of fantasy.

    So, for once, stand your ground and demonstrate with references beyond the school history site how Churchill is responsible for moving 350 tanks from Malaya to the USSR.

    Because that is a simple and easily verifiable fact upon which you based your early allegations of incompetence against Churchill.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 03-17-2011 at 08:20 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    You are correct, I did indeed miss that inference, though I did notice the "with one hand tied behind my back" addendum.
    It is most gracious of you to acknowledge your minor oversight.

    Oh, were it that another in this thread could acknowledge his hugely more grevious and vastly more numerous errors.

    Forgive me for perhaps seeming to correct you again, but I fear that you may have misconceived the 'one hand tied behind my back' addendum. I shall try to put this unsavoury matter in my customary delicate fashion by asking you to consider whether the offender started with one hand tied behind his back, or whether that was the position after he freed himself from the bonds applied to stop him interfering with himself, and shrugged off the boxing gloves applied for the same purpose. With one hand free, a wanker has free rein.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Xanadu
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    This is the third strike, I'm out. Sorry to have taken your time.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    It is most gracious of you to acknowledge your minor oversight.

    Oh, were it that another in this thread could acknowledge his hugely more grevious and vastly more numerous errors.

    Forgive me for perhaps seeming to correct you again, but I fear that you may have misconceived the 'one hand tied behind my back' addendum. I shall try to put this unsavoury matter in my customary delicate fashion by asking you to consider whether the offender started with one hand tied behind his back, or whether that was the position after he freed himself from the bonds applied to stop him interfering with himself, and shrugged off the boxing gloves applied for the same purpose. With one hand free, a wanker has free rein.
    My dear, esteemed colleague, I had meant that the above captioned addendum related to the Deponent's implied assertion that he was in all ways known to Western culture, superior in leadership, and organizational ability,to include the reading of Tea leaves, to those August, and Right Honorable Gentlemen cited in your earlier post. The addendum giving reinforcement to that implied assertion by indicating the Deponent would be in all these ways superior even if debilitated by the binding of one limb. It must be noted that this may be accompanied by the presence of the condition "Pedis in Oris"

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Trento
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The Soviet tanks that were "superior" were available in limited numbers at the start of Barbarossa, and Heer troops found some T-34s from the outset. They armor and guns may have impressed them, but since many T-34s broke-down initially due to mechanical teething problems, the Germans might not have considered them much of a long term threat. And when the T-34 achieved reliability, the Germans quickly countered with improved guns and even make a better version culminating in the Panther. I could go on, but I'm growing weary of responding to your poorly researched, factually incorrect and over-simplistic ramblings. Your lack of citations and posted sources is becoming a big problem here...
    Sorry for my intervention. The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like "Very worring" and Mellenthein said that "We have nothing comparable". Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
    I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:
    - Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
    - Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
    - every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
    - Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
    - Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander "waste" time to aim and shoot gun;

    Imho, Churchill at the end makes some mistake, but overall it was a good commander and makes the right decisions.
    Last edited by burp; 03-21-2011 at 06:59 AM.
    Pauci sed semper immites!

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Quote Originally Posted by burp View Post
    Sorry for my intervention.
    No need to apologize, your intervention is welcome...

    The Germans are really impressed by T-34 and KV-1, even if these tanks are plagued by reliability problems. Remember that Guderian define T-34 like "Very worring" and Mellenthein said that "We have nothing comparable". Against KV-1 and T-34, guns of PKW III e IV are useless at distances major than 500 meters, KV-1 is quite impenetrable. The only chances of Nazi tanks is to call air support or drive the Russian tanks in sight of towed 88 mm guns. So even if Soviet tanks broke something, they are still able, with only turret operational, to pose a real threat to advancing Germans armored columns.
    I think that, in 1941-1942, the problems of Soviet tanks reliability is one of the explaination for Nazi tank superiority, but is not the main reason, we must consider that:
    - Germans have soldier trained better and officiers more aggressive;
    - Germans in 1941 has aerial superiority, and this means that Ju-87 Stukas are able to seek and destroy a huge number of tanks;
    - every Nazi tank has radio link to platoon command tank and a good intercom, only Soviet platoon tank leader have radio equipment;
    - Nazi tanks have a better layout, less cramped than Soviet tanks, driver, command and loader work better with greater spaces organized in a better way;
    - Nazi tank commander simply gives orders focusing on his duty, while Soviet tank commander "waste" time to aim and shoot gun;

    ...
    I agree the Germans were most impressed by the T-34 and KV-1. But they encountered them is relative small numbers initially IIRC. And yes, obviously the Heer had a huge advantage both tactically and operationally over its early enemies. But used properly, tanks such as the T-34, KV-1, the SOUMA and Char B could inflict tactical setbacks on even the Heer. While the initial phases of Barbarossa appeared to be a German steamroller pushing Eastward, they still suffered some real losses as they had in both Poland and France despite inflicting total, quick defeats...

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    Even a relatively few tanks such as the 50 ish machine gun armed Matilda I's backed by around 15 Matilda II's and the odd Light Mk VI could cause some tactical problems for the German forces, with some possibly far reaching ramifications.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    glasgow
    Posts
    7

    Default Re: Churchill's major blunders.

    I suspect that samjoks ranting is due to him being indian and he seems to be simmering with resentment that the uk didnt turn india into an economic industrial and military powerhouse or that india would have been that if it was not for the uk mismanaging their imperial jewel in the crown. Either way i suspect that this is the reason for his indian centric revisionism ..

    As for his frankly bizzare tangents and incoherent ramblings .. i would say that this is a symptom of ignorance and im sure these tactics work in a verbal debate as one would forget half of what he said while trying to comprehend the other and im sure he no doubt feels that he "wins" thru sheer confusion !

    in saying that i have to say that i do think that a few hundred crap tanks would have made all the difference and would probably have halted the ija tanks driving over a couple of battalions of gurkhas as they marched in line and a few hundred hurricanes would have been very useful but even they were no match for zeros and as i recall even spitfire v`s struggled against them while defending darwin.

    hows that for a rambling incoherent ost of my own !

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •