Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 'No Patton'

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: 'No Patton' Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 1:38:40 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed.


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it


This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.

quote:

IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.


The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.

quote:

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.


I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.

quote:

The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.


In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)

quote:

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.


Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.

quote:

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.


Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?

quote:

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.


Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


IronDuke



What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.


Which translates as I'd rather keep up this Kursk straw man rather than answer your real points, because I have no answers to your real points. Fair enough, I should have known better after the Dietrich thread, but never mind. I present lots of valid arguments (and questions) you just find it easier to say I have no argument, because then you don't have to answer it.


PLEASE look and quote my comparison with Kursk (I dare you), as others have pointed out (yet another forum poster seems to have joined my side, I get a new friend every week arguing with you, yet no one seems to take your side...strange, that) I never went on about specifics, I merely said that Pattons strike would have looked like Mansteins, one arm of a pincer stretching northwards with nothing to link with, I never talked about fixed defences, mobile units (you no longer seem to mention the low on fuel comment, you seem to have dropped it rather than answer it) or anything specific. As I said, Forum posters should be in no doubt that this straw man is a tactic designed to hide the fact you have no answer sto my real questions. Your subsequent detour on to Dietrich again, is another attempt to hide this. This topic was locked, why drag it all up again and upset the moderator?

I repeat:

quote:

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


For you to reply to very detailed questions like this with the superficiality of this is astounding.

quote:

What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.


Your comments about Kursk indicate one thing.

1. You're hiding from my real points.

You can keep going on about the Kursk straw man if you wish, but ultimately we both know you concentrate on this because you have nowhere else to go. It is very sad.

Ironduke



Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy.

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 121
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 1:45:41 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator.



quote:

Von Rom
Your use of "willfully incorrect" is interesting. I suppose you can read my mind as well?


No, I don't think anyone could read your mind. I merely surmised that deliberately making a statement that clearly wasn't true, made the statement wilfully incorrect. Do you have a better word for it?


quote:

Von Rom
Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?

NEVER, have I ever seen this comparison made before.


Why re-evaluate, it is a straw man invented by yourself to avoid answering my challenges, because you couldn't answer them. This is not my problem.

quote:

Oh, and Patton made it to Bastogne in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated. I don't know how you tell time, but a 24 hour day commenced from the time Third Army left for Bastogne. Example: Third Army leaves at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and 24 hours later its 7:00 am Dec 23.

Therefore, FOUR days, NOT FIVE.


Dec 22, Dec 23, Dec 24, Dec 25, Dec 26.

How many days do you see?

IronDuke



1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call yourself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion.


2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00am on Dec 22 and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23, How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 8/31/2004 11:52:24 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 122
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 1:49:16 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy.

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?


I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads. I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread. If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default, however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.

IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 123
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 1:55:05 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call youurself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion.


I cannot read your mind.

quote:

2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.


So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him. Okay, have it your way

quote:

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23. How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .


Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.

IronDuke

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 124
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:12:30 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Well, you continue to defend your Kursk and Bulge analogy.

So it's you and one other person. Two whole people?


I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads. I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread. If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default, however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.

IronDuke



quote:

I can think of about seven who have had "discussions" with you over the last three threads.


But only TWO - you and one other - over the Kursk analogy.

So, despite your voodoo math - it's STILL two.


quote:

I will end this as I ended the Dietrich thread.



You didn't leave the Dietrich thread; it was locked.

In one of your last posts in that thread you accused me of refusing to provide you with Dietrich's testimony. But anyone can read that for themselves.


quote:

If you can answer my points, then we have an ongoing discussion. Ignore them, and I guess I win by default,



More dubious reasoning?

You should add this to your voodoo math for counting days in the Ardennes.

quote:

however, in it's present vein, we're just asking for this to be locked.



I have no doubt that you will try to have this thread locked.


quote:

I reprint my challenges below for your convenience.



So, you really expect me to answer YOUR challenges? When YOU demand it?

Earlier in this thread you treated me with contempt when you said:

"You [Von Rom] are not worth it".

I guess someone as worthless as myself may not be worth it.

But I stand up for what I believe.


quote:

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

Answer the above, and I might accept Patton's strategy had a chance. Without it, it's fantasy. I don't accept the argument "Patton thought he could do it, so it must be true." I'd rather we discussed it ourselves, and came to our own conclusions.

I will gladly address anything further from you on this line of argument you started.



You and several others hounded me in the Dietrich thread.

You treat me with contempt in this thread.

And you actually expect me roll over and do what you request of me now?

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.

I'm in the middle of collecting more research on another topic.

I have reams and reams of it. . .

Wait till you see it. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 125
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:13:10 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him)

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/malmedy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.



"Malicious?"

It's nothing of the sort.

I could have included far more quotes.



Be my guest

quote:

You wanted evidence and proof?

I provided just a small sampling here. . .


Shame you couldn't produce when you were originally asked for it.

quote:

All you fellas were tripping over yourselves, post after post in the Dietrich thread not only in attempting to prove those SS defendents didn't receive a fair trial (and thus should be set free), but you also dumped on me for NOT making Dietrich's transcript available for your immediate edification.


The site I linked to was the same site you linked to revealing how the Dachau trial was flawed. Do you now deny that it was flawed?

quote:

I have far more material with this came from. . .


As if we haven't read that before

It's all anyway

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 126
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:17:01 AM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.


nuff said, this says it all.

(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 127
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:20:10 AM   
a19999577

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Lima, Peru
Status: offline
That's it for me too.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 128
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:38:27 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

1) By stating my action was "willful" means that you could read my mind.

As I seem to recall, you did call youurself "Ironpsychic", so perhaps there is some truth in this assertion.


I cannot read your mind.

quote:

2) kursk - You continue to defend an analogy that simply doesn't apply.


So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him. Okay, have it your way

quote:

3) Counting days -

Here's a quiz for you Ironduke:

If I leave on a trip at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and arrive at my destination at 7:00am on Dec 23. How many days (hours) did it take me to get to my destination?

Your voodoo math in the Ardennes simply doesn't hold water. . .


Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.

IronDuke



quote:

I cannot read your mind.



I believe you.

quote:

So if Patton had a northward thrust with no thrust coming south to meet him, the situation wouldn't bear a passing resemblance to Mansteins thrust which went northward and had no thrust coming south to meet him.


I'm not going to enter a debate on this topic other than to say that the majority of Soviet defences at Kursk were entrenched, with interlocking anti-tank pits, etc, etc which took the Soviets MONTHS to prepare.

In the Bulge, however, there were NO entrenched German forces; they were mobile.

ALL or MOST of the German armour had already been committed in the north and with Peiper's advance KG.

The weather and roads alone would have allowed for an easy method to close off the German retreat.


quote:

Hmmm, so you are saying Bastogne was relieved at 7.00AM on 26th, are you? I guess you must be, because if it wasn't, then it was clearly more than four days. Can you tell us what time on 26th Bastogne was relieved, I didn't see this in my sources.



Nope. . .

It was an example of a time period. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 129
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:39:04 AM   
Golf33

 

Posts: 1962
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Since we are about right to go back on topic, I nominate Major General Katsimitros (or Katsemetres depending on how you transliterate it) of the Hellenic Land Army. Commanding the reinforced VIII Division on the Albanian front and covering a huge swathe of territory from the sea to the Pindus Mountains, in 1940 he and his men bore the initial Italian attack of three infantry and one armoured divisions. Although the Greek High Command had no plans to hold in his sector, planning instead to withdraw, Katsimitros was determined to defeat the invasion and without support or reinforcement not only contained the initial Italian attack almost in his starting locations, but also was able to launch local counterattacks to drive them back and lay the groundwork for the subsequent smashing Greek counteroffensive.

Regards
33

_____________________________

Steve Golf33 Long

(in reply to a19999577)
Post #: 130
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:40:21 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him)

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/malmedy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.



"Malicious?"

It's nothing of the sort.

I could have included far more quotes.



Be my guest

quote:

You wanted evidence and proof?

I provided just a small sampling here. . .


Shame you couldn't produce when you were originally asked for it.

quote:

All you fellas were tripping over yourselves, post after post in the Dietrich thread not only in attempting to prove those SS defendents didn't receive a fair trial (and thus should be set free), but you also dumped on me for NOT making Dietrich's transcript available for your immediate edification.


The site I linked to was the same site you linked to revealing how the Dachau trial was flawed. Do you now deny that it was flawed?

quote:

I have far more material with this came from. . .


As if we haven't read that before

It's all anyway



Like I said:

Be careful what you wish for

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 131
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:41:20 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

I may answer this sometime down the road.

But for now, I simply don't feel like it.


nuff said, this says it all.



Bye. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 132
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:42:02 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

That's it for me too.


Bye-bye. . .

_____________________________


(in reply to a19999577)
Post #: 133
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:42:02 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
Von Rom, please do whatever you are going to do old boy I have no worries

< Message edited by Kevinugly -- 9/1/2004 12:42:40 AM >


_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 134
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:43:47 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Von Rom, please do whatever you are going to do old boy I have no worries


Jolly good.

Then it's just you and me again

I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, do you still think there were less than 100 tanks in Lorraine in 1944?

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 135
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:45:14 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 136
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:52:00 AM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to being one-on-one with you

It all sounds like jolly fun. . .

Now you get a good night's sleep. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/1/2004 12:53:06 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 137
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:52:12 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Since we are about right to go back on topic, I nominate Major General Katsimitros (or Katsemetres depending on how you transliterate it) of the Hellenic Land Army. Commanding the reinforced VIII Division on the Albanian front and covering a huge swathe of territory from the sea to the Pindus Mountains, in 1940 he and his men bore the initial Italian attack of three infantry and one armoured divisions. Although the Greek High Command had no plans to hold in his sector, planning instead to withdraw, Katsimitros was determined to defeat the invasion and without support or reinforcement not only contained the initial Italian attack almost in his starting locations, but also was able to launch local counterattacks to drive them back and lay the groundwork for the subsequent smashing Greek counteroffensive.

Regards
33


Good call! You wouldn't by any chance be working on a game that deals with the Conquest of the Aegean?

< Message edited by Kevinugly -- 9/1/2004 12:56:28 AM >


_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Golf33)
Post #: 138
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 2:55:05 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to being one-on-one with you

It all sounds like jolly fun. . .



Now you get a good night's sleep. . .


Von Rom, who is this 'you' you're referring to? Are you suggesting that the readers should have all have a good night's sleep? Please be specific

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 139
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 3:48:06 AM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.




To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 140
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 5:56:40 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to being one-on-one with you

It all sounds like jolly fun. . .



Now you get a good night's sleep. . .


Von Rom, who is this 'you' you're referring to? Are you suggesting that the readers should have all have a good night's sleep? Please be specific


Clever

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 141
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 5:58:47 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.




To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.



It seems you can't add, either.

You're fighting a losing battle. . .

quote:

Absolutely my last word on the matter.




_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 142
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 6:26:32 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
Kevinugly:

quote:

To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.




Number of German tanks in Lorraine between Sept-Dec, 1944


There were a series of battles between Third Army and German forces between Sept 18-19 to Sept 28-30, 1944 that resulted in some of the biggest armoured battles on the western front.

More than 60 years later, the number of German armoured vehicles destroyed by Third Army's 4th Armoured Division in Lorraine has never been disputed.



From 20 to 25 September, the Fifth Panzer Army directed the 111th Panzer Brigade and the 11th Panzer Division into a series of attacks against the Arracourt position. Each assault followed the pattern set on 19 September. The Panzers attacked under the cover of morning fog, only to be thwarted by CCA's mobile defense and driven off by armored counterattacks of company or battalion strength. The defensive actions fought around Arracourt stalled the German offensive. The 4th Armored Division claimed 281 German tanks destroyed, 3,000 Germans killed, and another 3,000 taken prisoner in the fighting.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-50/Ch1.htm


From 19 to 25 September, two panzer brigades of the LVIII Panzer Corps hammered at Combat Command A's exposed position around Arracourt. Although outgunned by the German Panther tanks, the American Shermans and self-propelled tank destroyers enjoyed superior mobility and received overwhelming air support when the weather permitted. The fogs which interferred with American air strikes also neutralized the superior range of German tank armament. At the end of the week-long battle, Combat Command A reported 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers lost but claimed 285 German tanks destroyed.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gabel3/gabel3.asp


The Fourth Armored Division: 4th Armored Division in WWII from the Beaches to Bavaria. Considered General Patton's "steady" armored division, the 4th Armored Division missed only one of the Third Army's 281 days of combat. Captured 90,354 Nazis, killed est'd 13,600 & destroyed 579 German tanks. 6,000 men of the 4th Armored Division received Purple Hearts. An Official U.S. Army Division History First published in 1946, this outstanding history has 295 pages, 102 superb photos and illustrations, and 2 maps. Chapters include initial combat in Normandy, the breakout and dash across France, the battles for the Moselle River, the Battle of the Bulge, and the final operations deep in Germany. Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia. 1,356 KIA; 4,551 WIA

http://www.military.cibmedia.com/main-search-detail.asp?idsearch=4th+armor&productcode=BP-04A



On Sept 18, von Mellenthin, in Panzer Battles, stated that the Germans lost 50 tanks destroyed ON THE FIRST DAY OF BATTLE (p.377-78).

The Battle would rage on for ANOTHER 10 DAYS.


On Sept 20, Mellenthin stated that the 113th Pz Brigade committed 89 tanks to the battle (p.378).

So, as you can see, by just the second day of battle, the number of German tanks listed is GREATER (139) than the total number you give (114) for the ENTIRE BATTLE.

I could go on and on, but just this small bit of evidence once again proves you wrong.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/1/2004 4:44:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 143
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:08:15 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.




To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.



It seems you can't add, either.

You're fighting a losing battle. . .

quote:

Absolutely my last word on the matter.





I can't add? 89 and 25 equals 114

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 144
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:17:15 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
More Information Regarding the Number of German Tanks Committed in Lorraine


The 4th armoured division destroyed "281 German tanks..." (Carlo D'Este, Patton: A Genius for War, p.663).

General Patton stated: "For the last three days [Sept 18-20] we have had as bitter and protracted fighting as I have ever encountered. . . We have destroyed well over a hundred tanks and killed thousands. . ." (Martin Blumenson & George S. Patton, The Patton Papers 1940-1945; Da Capo Press; (October 1, 1996); p.552).


In Osprey's book Lorraine 1944 : Patton Vs Manteuffel (Campaign Series, 75) Zaloga tells us that the Germans committed about 616 tanks and assault guns against 1,280 US tanks and tank destroyers.

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/1/2004 5:24:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 145
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:22:36 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

It's academic since I can't discuss anything regarding P****n on this thread.


Ah, yes. . .

Well, for the forum readers:

In another thread, Kevinugly declared that there were only double digit German armour units in the Lorraine Campaign in Sept-Dec 1944. He questioned 4th Armour's record of detroying 285 German armoured units during 12 days of battle.

As I recall I produced quite a bit of evidence refuting Kev's assertions, while proving 4th Armour's number.




To break my own rule, the link you provided showed 114 tanks prior to the Battle of Arracourt (25 available to 111th bde and 89 to 113th bde). Just over double digit then. Absolutely my last word on the matter.



It seems you can't add, either.

You're fighting a losing battle. . .

quote:

Absolutely my last word on the matter.





I can't add? 89 and 25 equals 114



I see you broke your NON-COMMENT rule AGAIN

The number you counted from that link presents ONLY partial information.

To get the full number of German tanks available, a person has to go to MULTIPLE sources.

Do I really need to explain this to you?

The fact that you usually rely on only ONE source explains your misconceptions about 4th Armoured, Dietrich, Malmedy, and a host of other issues. . .

< Message edited by Von Rom -- 9/1/2004 5:26:43 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 146
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:31:31 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

I see you broke your NON-COMMENT rule AGAIN

The number you counted from that link presents ONLY partial information.

To get the full number of German tanks available, a person has to go to MULTIPLE sources.

Do I really need to expalin this to you?

The fact that you usually rely on only ONE source explains your misconceptions about 4th Armoured, Dietrich, Malmedy, and a host of other issues. . .


I was commenting on the link that you provided, not anything to do with the Lorraine Campaign which has already been fully discussed on a previous thread. If you'd read my post correctly you would have realised that.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 147
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:35:23 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

I see you broke your NON-COMMENT rule AGAIN

The number you counted from that link presents ONLY partial information.

To get the full number of German tanks available, a person has to go to MULTIPLE sources.

Do I really need to expalin this to you?

The fact that you usually rely on only ONE source explains your misconceptions about 4th Armoured, Dietrich, Malmedy, and a host of other issues. . .


I was commenting on the link that you provided, not anything to do with the Lorraine Campaign which has already been fully discussed on a previous thread. If you'd read my post correctly you would have realised that.


That link (which I provided from a previous thread) listed only PARTIAL information. If you will recall, that previous thread was locked before I could list further sources (which I have provided above).

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 148
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:39:25 PM   
Kevinugly

 

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

I see you broke your NON-COMMENT rule AGAIN

The number you counted from that link presents ONLY partial information.

To get the full number of German tanks available, a person has to go to MULTIPLE sources.

Do I really need to expalin this to you?

The fact that you usually rely on only ONE source explains your misconceptions about 4th Armoured, Dietrich, Malmedy, and a host of other issues. . .


I was commenting on the link that you provided, not anything to do with the Lorraine Campaign which has already been fully discussed on a previous thread. If you'd read my post correctly you would have realised that.


That link (which I provided from a previous thread) listed only PARTIAL information. If you will recall, that previous thread was locked before I could list further sources (which I have provided above).


Your problem, not mine If you'd really wanted to continue the discussion you could have started a new thread shortly after that one had been shut down. As it is, I and the rest of the board have moved on and I can only suggest that you do too.

Have a nice day

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Von Rom)
Post #: 149
RE: 'No Patton' - 9/1/2004 7:44:37 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

I see you broke your NON-COMMENT rule AGAIN

The number you counted from that link presents ONLY partial information.

To get the full number of German tanks available, a person has to go to MULTIPLE sources.

Do I really need to expalin this to you?

The fact that you usually rely on only ONE source explains your misconceptions about 4th Armoured, Dietrich, Malmedy, and a host of other issues. . .


I was commenting on the link that you provided, not anything to do with the Lorraine Campaign which has already been fully discussed on a previous thread. If you'd read my post correctly you would have realised that.


That link (which I provided from a previous thread) listed only PARTIAL information. If you will recall, that previous thread was locked before I could list further sources (which I have provided above).


Your problem, not mine If you'd really wanted to continue the discussion you could have started a new thread shortly after that one had been shut down. As it is, I and the rest of the board have moved on and I can only suggest that you do too.

Have a nice day


Not my problem

Twice, on the same issue, you were proven wrong.

Yet, you continued to insist YOU were right.

I agree it's time to move on.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kevinugly)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: 'No Patton' Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172