Hey Polish . . .

Discussion in 'Curio & Relics Forum' started by Pistolenschutze, Nov 10, 2007.

  1. I just noticed Century has Mauser K98 unbarreled actions for sale this month! Thought you would want to know. In your time off you could build yourself a REAL rifle. :D;)
  2. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    No, if I wanted to just SPEND more to build a rifle for some reason, I would probably use one of those 1903A1 actions from SOG...

    But why throw money away for no benefit? Kinda like spending more money just to buy a "Hangar Queen" of a car like a Mercedes Benz or a Beamer just to impress the ignorant neighbors, instead of spending a little LESS and buying a good dependable one...:p

  3. But Polish, if you had a Mauser you could relegate all those Mosins to a more appropriate use . . . as fence posts or rebar for concrete. :D;)
  4. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    Actually , I started my "next" project already...

    Out of the batch of "Parts" 44s I bought a few years ago for a song, was one 1944 wartime 44 that had a CLEANING rod stuck in the bore:eek:

    I tried to get it out after I got it, like countless guys probably did in the past, the head of it was stuck solidly just inside the bore, so as one of my first projects with my New Dremel tool I got last Xmas, I used a cutoff wheel to cut off about an inch of the barrel, and salvaged the rod, what the heck, they're $10....;)

    But when I recently grabbed all the other actions I had out in the garage, to survey for possible projects, I grabbed this one too...and after taking the 'Shooters Choice" and a brush to the bores this week, I'll be DARNED if this bore isn't like a mirror!:) Maybe the stuck rod happened LONG ago, so it hasn't been fired much?

    So yesterday I cut off another inch, and then squared it, and then recrowned it while watching the games, and it looks good, and the action is smooth too...so I start thinking a highwall just might make a neat "Scout..." Plus getting rid of that last 1 1/2" of barrel just MAY have gotten rid of any damaged rifling due to cleaning it from the muzzle... and have less of that ugly "step" at the end of the barrel from where the bayonet was..and I AGAIN think how it would be nice if I could fit some sort of muzzle break or flash suppressor to the end...start wondering and measuring again to see if I could maybe make one fit from an FAL or something......:cool:

    But then I got ANOTHER bug up my butt! EUREKA!

    Run out to the utility room, rummage through my odds and ends box, pull out one of the bayonet assemblies.....;)

    I think I can cut off the bayonet and lug, and shape it on a grinder, finish it off with paper, drill or machine either slots and holes through it, and remount it, using the lower pin to keep it in place! The barrel would extend about 1" or so into it, and the holes or slots would act as the break or at least maybe hide some of the LARGE flash from that short barrel!:D:D:D

    What the heck, if it doesn't work it will be no problem to remove it again and pitch it....
  5. travihanson

    travihanson Member

    May 24, 2007
    Milo, ME
    ROFL, you guys are great, I love the little "battles" you too have. They should have a ball busting forum dedicated to you two...I would read often :)
  6. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    trav, actually, if you notice, PS is only truly effective when he hides in the shadows like his crappy German tanks and takes the occasional potshot at the unsuspecting Shermans racing by...but when he comes out to FIGHT like a REAL Tank, he just ends up on his side in the ditch on the side of the road with his "big gun" pointed all askew and helpless looking like a beached whale like all those pictures you see of the Tigers and Panthers at the end of the war, because when he got 100 yds away from his hiding spot he broke a $.39 part in his tranny or threw a track....and you see his crew being marched off the captivity by some cooks and bakers while the REAL tanks and tankers are 20 miles PAST him racing non stop for Berlin!;)
  7. The relative few that were left, Polish, that didn't have 88mm holes in their turrets, body parts all over their interiors, and scorch marks on them from all that burning ammo and gasoline. That was no problem for the Americans though, just call up replacement tanks and crews from the repple depot and proceed; there's always more tanks and crews to send in as replacements, which was, of course, the only reason they could "race toward Berlin."
  8. travihanson

    travihanson Member

    May 24, 2007
    Milo, ME
    See? This is what I'm talking about....Like I said, you guys need your own subject forum here :D
  9. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    GEEZ, PS, you STILL aren't listening....SO I'll repeat it AGAIN....(Read a little slower and maybe take NOTES this time?;):D)

    In Western Europe relatively FEW Knocked out Shermans would have or even COULD have had "88mm holes" in them!

    For the simple fact that the Germans had very FEW Tiger Is or IIs in action (TOTAL miniscule production of the Tiger I since 1942 was 1300, counting how many were already lost in Africa and Russia, while the Tiger II TOTAL was 485, and the BULK if them were in the EAST....,) they had NO 88mm "AT" guns in the west (they were only developed very late in the war, and ALL of them were in the EAST...) and very FEW 88mm AA guns were left with the divisions as in the early years of the war when the TOEs were set for ATTACKING divisions, but were pulled back to defend strategic targets within the Reich, to augment the Luftwaffe mostly female staffed 88s and 128s, to do what they were DESIGNED to do, that is Anti-AIRCRAFT...SOME allied tanks were knocked out by them in the Ruhr Valley, and around Berlin (Russians)to be sure, but again, only during the last ditch defense...

    In fact MOST of the "88mm" holes in Shermans would have been caused by the Infantry Panzerschrech, the copy of our Bazooka...

    Most of the Knocked out Shermans in Western Europe were knocked out by, in THIS order, BTW,(1) 75mm AT guns from WHEELED mounts, (2) Lower Velocity 75mm from "Hetzer" Jagdpanzers, (3) Panzerfaust 15s and 30s, with the occasional 60s thrown in and THEN (4) Tank gun fire, MOSTLY the 75mms of Pzkw IVs, or the (I will GIVE you) the EXCELLENT Long 75 of the Panther...with the OCCASIONAL 88mm of a Tiger I or II...

    The tank losses to the "88" in Western Europe were "statistically insignificant..." YES there was the ONE incident of the TIger knocking out 25 M4s attacking foolishly in column across the open, and a few other incidents of INDIVIDUAL Tigers IIs doing well, but they had virtually NO impact on the war! In fact, M4 Shermans in Western Europe never encountered more than a "handful" (Quotes NOT mine...) of EITHER Tiger Is or IIs at any one time, the entire campaign.

    But they DID encounter Panthers, several times up to battalion strength, and even Regimental strength...

    I'll give you a hint, PS. ;)

    Do you KNOW where you, and other "German Superiority" lovers (like the passionate young kid we had a few years ago named 'Striderteen'?:p) give yourselves away, at least on TANKS?

    It's your ALMOST total IGNORING of the Panther in your almost BREATHLESS defense of the "Super Tiger II...."

    I had to almost PULL it out of you in our first discussions on this, to get you even to ACKNOWLEDGE the Panther....compared to your "sacred" Konigstiger...

    THAT tells any experienced Tanker or armor scholar that you are MARRIED to the "Spec tables," interested ONLY in SIZE, especially "Gun Size" and "Armor thickness...":cool:

    The PANTHER was by far the best German tank of the war, and if not for the bugs, would have been by FAR the "Best" tank of the war, on EITHER side...the PANTHER was the tank that could have won the war for Germany, the PANTHER was the one German Tank that gave M4s fits, the PANTHER was one of the reasons the M26 was rushed, the PANTHER was the reason the US Brass changed their mind after DDay and agreed to the 76mm upgun of the M4s that they refused prior, the PANTHER was actually the most "modern" tank the German's designed, the PANTHER had actually THICKER "practical" armor than the "theoretical" thickness of the Tiger II, simply do to the excellent SLOPING of the Glacis plate...

    You like math, armor thickness is actually the thickness the penetrator has to traverse, so 2" of armor tilted 45 degrees is the equivalent more like 4 inches of vertical armor...if the round DOESN'T deflect, which is why listed frontal armor THICKNESS in the tables is the FIRST thing you discount without knowing the SLOPE (AND why you didn't bat an EYE the many times I mentioned the redesign of the 47 degree glacis of the M4s after mid 1944...the listed NOMINAL armor thickness of 1944 M4s didn't go up, so you would see NO change in the "tables," but the PRACTICAL frontal armor thickness was increased by over 1/3. with NO increase in weight!) THAT is "design" at work...

    And they made TEN TIMES the number of Panthers than Tiger IIs, so the Panther actually made an IMPACT on the war...

    The Tiger WAS a waste of time, resources and production capability (Not EVEN considering it tied up efforts and production of both Henschel AND Porsche!). The fact that they could only produce less than 500 of these dinosaurs speaks for itself, during the time frame the US was producing 50,000 MBTs and the Soviets were producing 60,000....It's BEYOND defensible, it's INSANITY.....

    The fact that if they scrapped the idea of anything heavier than the Panther after they "wisely" stopped production of the Tiger I in 1944, they could have made THOUSANDS more of the superior Panther, even maybe DOUBLED production(and perhaps worked out more bugs?)and MANY thousands more of the adequate dependable Pzkw IV...that MIGHT have made it worse on the Allies, and actually allowed the Germans to actually conduct some meaningful counteroffensives..

    But by wasting their efforts on them, they actually HASTENED the end of the war. For which we need to be THANKFUL...

    But if you want to actually make the case for a German " Best Tank of the war," it would be a LOT harder to argue against the Panther...the TIGERS are actually a piece of cake!;)
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2007
  10. Polish, if you could figure out a way to package that stuff, you could sell it in Iowa . . . for growing corn. Don't try selling it in Texas though. Lots of cattle are raised there so BS is very cheap. But by all means, keep repeating yourself in these long dissertations. Sooner or later SOMEONE will believe you. Like Goebbels said, if you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, people will believe it, which of course, is what the U.S. government did so successfully with the families of the thousands of unnecessary battle casualties suffered because we refused to build a tank that was more than barely adequate to its task.

    For God's sake, Mike, think about what you're saying! You simply make my point for me! The M4 was NOT, repeat, NOT adequately armored to stand up to the weapons the Germans employed against it, and it makes not a good shout in hell whether that weapon was fired from a tank or by a grunt in the bushes with a Panzerfaust! Either way, the Sherman burned, only to be replaced with another Sherman and another crew. You've never heard me argue that the M4 did not get the job done. It did. But not by virtue of its armor, its armament, and certainly not by its engineering, but rather by the massive numbers the American industrial giant was fortunately able to produce. They were relatively cheap and easy to build if you can afford the casualties. We could and did. World War II was a war of production capabilities and attrition, Polish, not a war of mechanical design v. design. Had it been, Germany would have won by 1943 at the latest! Even the fabled Russian T-34--considered the best tank to come out of World War II--was successful because of its massive NUMBERS, Polish. At Kursk, for example, the Russians outnumber the Germans 2 to 1 in tanks, yet the Russians lost far more tanks in the battle than the Germans. In the end, the Russians won the battle. At the end of the fighting in Kursk, the German forces had suffered 200,000 casualties and lost about 500 tanks, while Russian losses amounted to 860,000 casualties and about 1,500 tanks!
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2007
  11. travihanson

    travihanson Member

    May 24, 2007
    Milo, ME
    *headdesk* *clicks back button* :)
  12. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    No BS, PS (Hey, that RHYMES!;)) just FACT.

    You REALLY need to expand your knowledge of what armored warfare IS and has always BEEN...you just DON'T get it...

    NO TANK, not even your beloved TIGERS, and even TODAY, with our composite armor, reactive armor, spaced armor, hell, probably even with the "Star Wars" electromagnetic FIELD armor that we are working on today, has been 'Proof" against it's own GUN, since the Matilda II!!!

    THINK about what THAT means PS, that is what hit me years ago when that concept sunk in...

    ..."bigger Gun" "bigger Armor" using EXISTING technology to "improve" your tank design by simply making it HEAVIER is something a first year engineering student can design into a tank! That is NOT "revolutionary," or ""superior" in design! Where the bear craps in the buckwheat is making your NEW behemoth RUN...reliably and adequately to MANEUVER in battle...secondarily, making it as LOW as possible, while still allowing your crew to operate it, and so you can STILL depress that (longer breeched) gun inside the turret to fire adequately from "hull down..., "so you can SLOPE that armor to the max...

    Second, NO tank, not EVEN your vaunted Tigers, were "immune" to Anti-Tank gun fire, even 57mm, hell, a Panther got knocked out at Bastogne with a 37mm from an M8 Scout Car, which was ORIGNALLY designed to be a Tank Destroyer!! Most GERMAN Tigers and Panthers were knocked out from late 1944 and 1945 by the M18 HELLCAT tank Destroyer with the same 76mm gun the SHERMAN had...so was the armor of YOUR tanks "barely adequate?"

    And NO tank, with hardened steel armor, including your vaunted Tigers, is immune from HEAT charges, whether from a cannon or artillery piece, OR ESPECIALLY from determined infantryman or fanatics from 15 FEET away, whether it was a US Infantryman with a Bazooka, a German with his Panzerfaust, a British Tommy with a Piat, a Japanese soldier with a "Lunge Mine," a Russian soldier with his Molotov, or an Islamic Terrorist with an RPG!

    The SECRET to surviving in an armored warfare environment, as well as ACCOMPLISHING YOUR ASSIGNED MISSION, (which even the hopeless romantic you are would agree is something at least a little IMPORTANT in a war...)and ANY tanker will tell you that, is to SEE the enemy first, HIT it first if possible, but more importantly. maneuver INTO advantageous or OUT of DISADVANTAGEOUS situations as quickly as possible!

    That my friend is the ESSENCE of tank warfare you still fail to GRASP!!!

    Your beloved TIGERS were CRAP! They couldn't MANEUVER out of their own WAY.

    The Panthers were BETTER, they COULD maneuver, until of course the inevitable BREAKDOWN occurred, but still they could MANEUVER...

    And as far as THIS crap....all I can say is STOP IT...I HOPE you are not TEACHING this...:cool:

    "Like Goebbels said, if you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, people will believe it, which of course, is what the U.S. government did so successfully with the families of the thousands of unnecessary battle casualties suffered because we refused to build a tank that was more than barely adequate to its task."

    THAT is so far from the truth as to be NAUSEATING.

    "Unnecessary battle Deaths...." You sound like Harry Reid...

    And "Barely Adequate?" Make me LAUGH...in warfare that is like "barely PREGNANT..." Have you EVER heard of "Economy of Force?" (Yeah, that applies to EQUIPMENT too..and just MAY be why tens of THOUSANDS "Barely adequate" ALLIED tanks were IN GERMANY, Kicking @SS, when there was barely a couple THOUSAND of German tanks of all types to oppose them?

    Have you ever heard of "Doing the most damage to the enemy in the shortest time with what's available?" NOT waiting for "something better" to come along?

    I need to start calling YOU "Herr Goebbels..".for you are the propagandist here, WORSE than that, slamming your own COUNTRY'S decisions that not only were CORRECT, and not only WON the war, but SHORTENED the war!!! Thus SAVING lives.....I can SEE if we had LOST....but saying we should have "Won Better" is the WORST of Monday Morning Armchair Quarterbacking....

    "Barely adequate" my @ss!:mad:

    What about the US Tankers lives it SAVED, because it simply STARTED and could MOVE each morning, not like virtually ALL German Tanks, so much so the Russians KNEW to attack at DAWN, when so many German tanks would be IMMOBILE???? PITY the German Panther or Tiger crew trying to keep the fire lit under the Panther or Tiger just so the typically too complicated German interleaved road wheels and torsion bars would MOVE in the morning...

    What about the Panther Crews screaming while burning up inside THEIR "Death Traps" at Kursk? (Yeah, PS, READ it and weep.."the Panthers BURNED too easily when hit..." {What is the GERMAN word for "Ronson???"} from the German General Staff after action report!)

    Where do you get the idea thinking committing tanks BEFORE bugs are worked out is somehow "Good" for the troops...OR their families???

    You HAVE to get over Cooper...it's not GOOD for you...

    The SAME thing happened when the Tiger I was committed "early" in 1942, the Tiger II should never have been COMMITTED!

    And you think WE should have done the same??? And it would have done ANY better???

    MANY more German crews were lost to THAT than AMERICAN crews EVER lost to your vaunted Tigers...and what about those CREWS, did they all SURVIVE Siberia when captured, or do you think they would have been better OFF to have been in a Sherman, where only ONE crew member was lost on average was lost for every one knocked out????

    What the HELL about all the poor GERMAN soldiers sent to their DEATHS because they were issued mechanically INFERIOR tanks, in insufficient numbers????

    Issued tanks that could not maneuver, that they could not TRAIN adequately in, that they KNEW were irreplaceable much less that spare PARTS were not available...what DECISIONS did THEY make that sent their Panzertruppen to their unnecessary deaths???? There are MANY.... I hope you are at least being FAIR about it....:cool:

    The MAIN reason our tankers were so much BETTER than any Germans at the END of the war is because American Tankers SURVIVED to fight AGAIN...while GERMAN tankers DIED, or were CAPTURED....

    THAT is a fact, look it up...

    Patton's 4th Armored was the best trained, most experienced, man for man, Armored Division in the WORLD in 1944-45, with the M4, and the 2nd and 3rd were not much farther back on the list....NOT the GrossDeutchsland, the Death's Head, not ANYTHING German...and the GERMANS at the time even recognized THAT....

    At the end of the war we had TRAINED TANKERS in MOBILE Mechanically reliable tanks, while the Germans had barely trained TEENAGERS in immobile overweight, mechanically inferior, JUNK....

    LOOK IT UP, in any OTHER book than Cooper's.....

    And look it up reading fairly on ALL sides, not glossing over the bad stuff and emphasizing the GOOD stuff written about YOUR "favorites," while doing the OPPOSITE on the object of your WRATH...(I have yet to hear you ACKNOWLEDGE even ONE "fault" of ANY German design, come to think of it...;))...what side has had the most CRITICAL histories written about it, in WWII or ANY conflict since!..the US

    How about THIS proposal, PS....:p

    As I learned from one of my Pre-Law classes, one of the BEST ways to learn to be open minded is to argue the OPPOSITE case...

    SO let's start a thread where you list the BEST points of the Sherman, and the WORST points about the Panthers and Tigers...and I'll do the opposite...:p
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  13. Polish, your argument is an emotional one, not a logical one. Emotion has no place in a logical argument. It leads--as is so evident in your continual drift from issue to issue--to "ignoratio elenchi" or "missing the point" fallacies. All I have ever said is that, tank for tank, the German machines were far better than the American Shermans, and that the U.S. won in Europe because of its mass production capabilities and the institution of excellent tactics using the tanks it produced, not the quality qua quality of its tanks. The United States of America COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE FIELDED A BETTER TANK THAN THE SHERMAN! The fact that it did not, did in fact lead to soldier deaths that were unnecessary. Following your own "logic," the fact that the U.S. has been so horribly slow in properly armoring the Hummers in Iraq and providing other equipment our soldiers NEED to do their jobs with the most possible safety, is something we should just chalk up to "the exigencies of war." BULLPUCKY! "Economy of force" is a concept that is meaningful only to politicians, rear-area commanders, and pencil-pushing bean counters sitting on their fat butts all safe and sound, not to soldiers in the field. I've been there, done that, and seen first hand the results of your so highly acclaimed "concept." Suffice it to say, it was not a pretty sight. You dismiss Belton Cooper as being biased. I suppose he is to some degree, but he was there and saw first hand the results of your "economy of force" concept. He was also RIGHT about the inadequacies of the Sherman M4 and the fact that its exclusive use as our MBT was inexcusable. Was there a place for the Sherman, basically a medium tank, in the European Theater of Operations? Of course there was, just as there was a place for many other types of military vehicles, but there was also a place--one we damn well should have filled--for a weapons system that could successfully counter the weapons we knew, from 1942 onward, that the Germans could and would employ against the Sherman.

    No Polish, I don't agree with you and I never shall on the basic issue under discussion. Both the American and German machines had their advantages and disadvantages, but the simple fact that the Sherman worked in the long haul across France and German does not mean that they were the very best machine, or the most appropriate machine, we could have fielded. We won because of numbers, Polish, not quality. We won the production race, not the technology race.
  14. polishshooter

    polishshooter Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2001
    And I have to respectfully disagree with you, both on the fact you think the Germans had better technology in their tank designs, they didn't, because quite simply they didn't WORK. AND on the Hummers....

    And the Americans did a FINE job, much BETTER than the Germans, of anticipating FUTURE needs, and committing to the production of the tank that we would train with, and WIN with....in 1942! And STICKING with it...

    And there you go again, saying "German Tanks.." in GENERAL.

    Was the Panzer I, II, III, IV, the Cz 35 and 38 ALL BETTER than the Sherman? Maybe the French S-35s and H-39s they took into service because they didn't even have enough of THOSE? Obviously, NO, they were dead meat for it...except maybe the IV, which was pretty much an equal....so then you are saying 5000 Panthers, 1300 Tiger Is, and 487 Tiger IIs represent the "epitome" as well as "sum total" of "German Technological Superiority" facing 46000 M4s, that had to be SHIPPED 3000 miles to even FIGHT, (which you also ignore...) and 60,000 T 34s....? It is LAUGHABLE.

    Yeah, numerical superiority had a LOT to do with it, but you are DELUSIONAL if you dismiss that as ALL there was to it..."Industrial Capacity...."

    What a "pat" answer, to leave it at that....:p

    The fact that we COULD make 50,000 of them, is DUE to to the "Better Technology." For that, what, America should APOLOGIZE? To WHOM, it's SOLDIERS who won, or to the Germans who LOST?;)

    Let's try this one OTHER way....

    List for me, SPECIFICALLY, the "technological advances" of ANY German Tank of WWII...

    The Shermans? I can give you three, off the top of my head...that carried over to Post-War tanks...

    Better power to weight ratio, with a MULTITUDE of different engines...

    Gyroscopic Dual purpose gun mount...

    Suspension and tracks designed for 2500 road miles between replacement...

    Modular power pack replacement, done in hours, sometimes minutes, at Battalion level, not days at the depot level...

    I challenge you to give me ANY advantages the Tiger had on the Sherman, BESIDES "Bigger gun," "thicker armor...." (Which incidentally are NOT "Technological Advances." ) Heck, even I with a stick welder and enough plate could probably "design" a tank that would impress you with only THOSE parameters...

    No PS, for EVERYTHING that America faced, starting virtually from SCRATCH in 1941, with an ENTIRE Army structure and Budget SMALLER than Romania's, America gave it's fighting men, marines, and allies a DAMM good tank, AND in sufficient qualities, with which they could WIN.

    And they DIDN'T get into the "Bigger Gun, Thicker Armor" spiral which is a KILLER in wartime, to soldiers, as well as production figures....

    As opposed to the GERMANS,who had an UNLIMITED military budget since the beginning of rearming in 1935, starting with NO preconceived notions, NOBODY opposing defense spending in the middle of a depression, having learned the BEST lessons from the interwar exercises and theories...took until 1943 to build a tank that could hold it's OWN against the M4 or T34, and had to depend on CAPTURED tanks for it's Blitzkrieg before that? And while the REST of it's army was HORSE DRAWN the ENTIRE war? Was THAT "technological superiority" also?

    No PS, for the country that INVENTED Blitzkrieg, their tanks sure didn't match the doctrine...if anything, we should all be in awe of what they DID manage to accomplish, with such POOR tanks, against such GREAT odds...

    The GERMANS should apologize for NOT producing even ONE tank, in sufficient numbers....not because of Industrial CAPACITY, but DEFUSION of EFFORT...

    As for the HUMMERS, again you disregard what the PURPOSE a "General Purpose High Mobility Vehicle" is DESIGNED for!

    It was NOT designed to be an Armored Vehicle! If we need an armored patrol vehicle, we need to GET one. The HMVEE has done a FINE job as a "GP" vehicle!

    The fact that one of it's many handy VARIANTS was an uparmored patrol version, a slightly slower version with a beefed up suspension to handle the extra weight, that we found to be valuable fighting a war that NOBODY anticipated, does NOT mean we were wrong not to uparmor them all immediately!

    The simple fact is the basic Humvee was NEVER designed for that added weight! It meant slower speed, less maneuverability, premature breakdowns, and premature wear! In other words, a quick way to NO HMVEES! Not MUCH different than your German tanks! You simply CANNOT "simply" add armor and weight to an EXISTING frame without damaging it, unless it is DESIGNED for it! It is a TRADE OFF!

    Now maybe the fact we didn't immediately ORDER more ARMORED ones to be made at the factory is where we dropped the ball, but even THAT is explaianable....

    The reason the Army FOUGHT it, is the budgets as dictated by Congress, (remember the so called 'PEACE DIVIDEND?":mad:) ARE so tight we could not AFFORD to replace that many Humvees, that would be trashed if that much many "regular" were suddenly armored!

    I mean Rumsfeld got TRASHED when he slashed a bunch of pet congressional project stuff from the appropriations, stuff the army didn't even WANT, like the new 155 SPG we didn't need to be able to spend the money ELSEWHERE, if THAT was in there, how many OTHER Humvees get cut???? Or WORSE, do we buy LESS Predators so we can uparmor? OR maybe less ammo? How about less hospital supplies. YOU make the call! Heck, we can't even get Congress to authorize ANY money for it TODAY!

    Heck, Patton argued and fought right to the END against all the "Field Expedient" additions to the armor of the M4 Shermans done in the field at the end of the war to try and fend off the Panzerfausts in the built up areas at close range that the GIs were doing. with sandbags, logs and even concrete...on the very same GROUNDS...Breakdown rates were SOARING, because they were overloading the suspensions with all that extra weight...(just like the GERMANS did with the Tigers and Panthers BTW....)

    IF many Humvees suddenly are broke down, then what are WOUNDED soldiers supposed to get to the hospital in, we don't have THAT many Helicopters either!

    The HUMVEE replaced the JEEP! We had SEVERAL "specialty" armored Jeep versions, FO vehicles, FO Tenders, that were ARMORED in WWII! WHY didn't we armor them ALL???? For the same REASON, they are "General Purpose" Vehicles... it is JUST as important to have enough AMBULANCES, TRANSPORTS, LIASON, SUPPLY, RECON , etc, etc Hummers as it is ARMORED PATROL VEHICLES!

    Geez, I thought YOU would get THAT!

    Now MAYBE the fact we didn't foresee the need for a NEW vehicle, maybe we should have budgeted money for the MRAP before Iraq...(Do YOU have a crystal ball?) or should have known we needed more versions of the uparmored Humvee, in our TOE, or that we didn't have enough M113s or Bradleys around to do the job, THAT may be where your anger should be directed, but Uparmoring the Humvees that were NEVER designed for it is not and never WAS a good solution and the friction against it is FULLY explainable....

    But AGAIN we are NOT winning because we uparmored the HMVEES! We are WINNING in Iraq, and LOSING less men, because we finally adjusted our tactics, and adopted a war winning OFFENSIVE STRATEGY, taking the war TO the enemy, not "defensively" waiting for it to come to us, that would have been successful WITHOUT uparmoring the HMVEEs....

    SADLY, the USMC has put ALL their marbles behind the MRAP, and will no longer replace the HMVEEs it has...

    They are replacing a highly maneuverable UTILITY vehicle with a LARGER, HEAVIER, SLOWER, LESS MANEUVERABLE Vehicle that is to do the SAME job the HMVEE did?

    And what, end up buying "extra budgetary" CHEVYS for all the OTHER mundane jobs that have to be done and the MRAPS won't be able to do?

    I FEAR we are asking the MRAP to become a TANK...and it will NEVER be one. It has TWICE the turning radius of a HMVEE, and is slow and CLUMSY...YES it can better survive a MINE or IED, BUT...picture it in Somalia, on a narrow street, unable to turn, loaded with Marines this time, and a terrorist saunters up with an RPG...so much for your "extra armor." It's merely a "feel good" solution....

    Just MAYBE an UNARMORED HMVEE would be BETTER in that case, just to get OUT of there....

    And PS? Resorting to the "I was there and you weren't" is usually the last gasp of the side using emotionalism in it's logic.

    What is TRULY at work here, and I FULLY realize it, is I am attacking the fundamental building blocks of History that have been taught for decades, and you too, have been teaching....

    When those basic beliefs get CHALLENGED, the normal reaction is to lash out...and I ALSO can tell you are NOT used to being challenged...by mere "Students...":p ;)

    But consider this no different than when our entire belief structure of the Battle of the Atlantic, specifically, but the entire conduct of the war against Hitler, in General, as it had been reported by Historians, and all our professors, had to be radically altered overnight in the 1970s when we first heard about "Ultra..."

    Then in the 1990s, we found out that SOME of the stuff we first found out about Ultra was bogus, PLANTED by the government when Historians uncoverd the fringes of Ultra, because some of the code breaking techniques and computer programs were STILL being used against the Russians!

    OVERNIGHT a LOT of "Conventional Wisdom" over the war was SHATTERED...all because we were reading in detail the nightly reports Donitz required from each of his Uboat commanders before HE WAS.

    I HOPE you aren't still teaching about "Huff/Duff" and radar as the main reasons we won the Uboat war too!
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  15. My dear sir, I find such remarks as these personally offensive. Why you find it necessary to resort to them instead of confining yourself only to the intellectual issue at hand, I cannot say. All I can say is that it ill-becomes you. Polemics convince no one but the converted. So far as I am concerned, this discussion ends here.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Curio & Relics Forum Polish p64 parts Feb 27, 2013
Curio & Relics Forum WZ 48 Polish Trainer Jul 30, 2009
Curio & Relics Forum Polishshooter's Favorite Activities Aug 18, 2007
Curio & Relics Forum UNDER an inch and a half from the Polish M44 with Prvi Partisan... Jun 15, 2007
Curio & Relics Forum polish tokarev tt33 problem Apr 20, 2007