Posts made by Col. Ty Webb

Do we know these are in, or just trying to figure that out?

@Clyde85:

@Col.:

Their banzai charges more often led to them being mowed down rather than be successful. It wasn’t until they adapted the highly defensive tactics of the island hopping campaign that they started to see any form of unity in causalities.

It’s my understanding was that Banzai charges were kind of a last resort, when all other options were exhausted. However this is in contrast to their main attack tactics of the “Mass Assault”, which I know sounds like i’m splitting hairs, but there was a difference. The mass assault was conducted with artillery support (usually in the form of the Type 96,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_15_cm_Howitzer ) but was identical to trench assaults of WW1.

Goering is an interesting character to be sure, and as leader of the Luftwaffe he was a dud, but its funny to remember that during WW1 he was one of Germany’s fighter aces. One does have to wonder what happened in the inter-war years to take him from dashing and heroic fighter ace to massive (and I do mean massive) morphine addicted retarded piece of cartilage we know from WW2.

I think it might have been on The World at War, but I can’t remember, but I’ve heard somewhere that it was more the riflemen themselves that would rather do the banzai charge. Many of them happened because the regular Japanese soldier had a tendency to get antsy. They wanted to charge and when the sh*t hit the fan that’s what they would end up doing, It was the one time they really lacked discipline.
I also know that small groups of soldiers would also charge almost as a form of suicide.

As for Goering, the morphine must have played a big part. As you said earlier, and as Lazarus apparently didn’t know, the man was a national hero after WWI, and it’s not like the Luftwaffe was pathetic itself. But he was awful. Some of the footage of him from Nuremberg is great. The allies got him off the morphine and he’s lost 100 pounds, but he still thinks everything is okay. That he’ll be safe. Then he kills himself.

@Lazarus:

@Clyde85:

The problem is that there seems to be no bases in reality for any of your claims, and most of what you bring up sounds like revisionist nonsense.

Look hard in the mirror.  I remember an earlier post where you  introduced  British losses for Goodwood (to prove Monty always came off worst) that turned out to be an estimate of POW’s.
I see a lot of  spamming  of the thread with Wiki cut and pastes in  reply to my use of book quotes.
You are welcome to call me anything you like but in comparison to you I am  overburdened with references.

Yeah but most of your refrences make less sense than the posts.

You spent a whole day posting things you thought proved that Germans thought Monty was on Pattons level, when nobody else who read that passage came to your conclusion. It’s easy to be ‘overburdened’ when you take selective parts of passages that make you sound right, when the whole passage is proving you wrong.

You still continue to use one of your phrases or words to defend yourself from both sides. When someone tries to say Monty wasn’t any good, you say he was Supreme Commander. When someone asks you when he was Supreme Commander, you tell them June to Sept. When someone asks you who replaced Monty, you said Eisenhower. But when someone claims you said any of this you, you go back through and show all of the posts where you said it as proof that you didn’t mean it.

Your circular logic has ripped more holes in the space-time contimuium than the flux capacitor.

And I see you’re still trying to edit history so you don’t look as foolish, but you still can’t seem to get it to work can you.

Kurt,

Thanks for bringing up Goering. I hadn’t thought of him, but way overrated. One of history’s greatest “Yes” men. He would have told Hitler that the Luftwaffe could have won the entire war by itself.

To your comments on the jet fighters, another of Hitler’s drawbacks was they he invested in many, many technologies. Some of them worked, and worked very well, but others didn’t. Had he concentrated more on quality than quantity when it came to funding technology, that could have made a difference.

I agree on the Japanese. I think you could call almost all of their leaders overrated. As Clyde pointed out, they never learned.

People like to think that the Japanese were really the innovators in the aircraft carrier coming to the forefront of the naval tactics, when in fact they didn’t even learn from their success at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese navy was still locked in the Mahan belief that the battleship was still king, battles should be fought with almost your entire navy (don’t split your forces) and you should look for the big decisive fight. That’s why Midway was tried again so shortly after Pearl Harbor.

Of course at Midway they showed one of their biggest flaws of having to make everything so complicated and deceptive. By doing those they actually went against Mahanian philosophy and split the fleet to act as a decoy towards the Aleutians. Of course, the US knew it was a decoy and ignored it.

Believing they could beat them like it was still the Russo-Japanese war, the Russians embarrassed the Japanese along the border when they tried to instigate a fight. From there on, the only good the million men in Manchuria did was keeping Russia’s Siberian troops waiting for a Japanese invasion. We all know what happened after Stalin figured the Japanese wouldn’t attack and those Siberian troops were allowed to help at Moscow.

Their banzai charges more often led to them being mowed down rather than be successful. It wasn’t until they adapted the highly defensive tactics of the island hopping campaign that they started to see any form of unity in causalities.

@Lazarus:

@Deaths:

I do Believe this is what i stated before, and you told me i was incorrect Lazurus. So you can eat your own post

And you can eat the fact you do not understand commonly used rules of grammar.

The term was clearly signposted and  yet the great and the good completely misunderstood/misread it.

@Deaths:

He commanded all Ground forces, but it in know way makes him a “Supreme” Commander as you have stated he was several times. He still had to answer to Eisenhower

Might have more impact without the  homonym.

Is it possible you could list the ‘several times’ I refered to Monty as ‘Supreme Commander’.

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

No need to get hurt because you can’t explain to me how Eisenhower assumed command when you say he was always the Supreme Commander.

It’s cool man, you contradict yourslef alot. Everyone one here can see it. You’ll actually use one of your statements to support something in one post, then use the same one to suppor the exact opposite in the next.

I also know you edited your ‘supreme commander’ post at 10:30 this morning to add your scare quotes. In your post from May 9, 3:42 p.m., where you actully quote yourself contradicting yourself:

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am
The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!
I went � on to explain Montgomery’s role in

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am
He (Montgomery) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

All of those say they were posted today, but none of them were because you went back in and edited them to make your argument seem less stupid.

You actually changed history in a post, just like your trying to do with WWII, just to make yourself look less ignorant.

It didn’t work.

As long as you promise not to be teaching the English class. You’d have “English” written on the chalkboard then would teach Aramaic.

Thanks for proving my point with your entire post. All you did was show that you change your story in every single post to fit your needs.

BTW, after you take a crash course in logic, maybe you can eplain to me how someone who has always had supreme command can assume it from someone that didn’t have it.

Until then I’m afraid all you do is take the stance that Eisenhower was always the Supreme Commander, but that Montogmery was the Supreme Commander as well. Quite logical.

I’m surprised the English major that you are didn’t know that supreme means above all others. There can only be one supreme. You admit that it was always Eisenhower, but then try to say it was Montgomery. Your thinking defies not only the rules of logic, but of the English language.

@Lazarus:

The 3 Wise Monkeys are alive and well……

And the great and wonderful Wizard of Ox is just some guy behind a curtain who can’t even keep his story straight.
It amazes me how many facts you are willing to change to convince yourself you are right.

And apparently it’s not so simple for you. On May 6 you said Eisenhower was always the supreme commander. He just knew when to delegate authority. But then you come back and say that Monty was in supreme command from June 6 until Sept. 1. You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Please figure out what you actually believe before you try to tell it as fact.

@Lazarus

From KurtGodel7 to you:

“If you’re claiming there was no political component to the Allies’ command decisions, then your perspective bears no relationship with reality.”

How did you derive the exact opposite of that?

You also go from one post where you say Eisenhower was always in overall command, then in more than one post say how many people didn’t know that Montgomery was in overall command. Which is it?

If you can’t even keep your own story straight, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Old board is 32" x 19".

New Board is 40” x 26". Don’t know if the new board still includes the IPC chart like the first edition.

I’ll think you’ll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

Please tell more of these Montogemry victories. Do you speak of the one he finally got in North Africa with far superior forces against Germans with no supplies and no further reinforcements?

Or are you speaking of how he couldn’t get off the beachhead in Normandy then failed miserable at Market Garden?

Kind of hard to give him credit for El Alamein, then give him a pass everywhere else.

Without being able to quote a source, and just going off my own knowledge and opinions of the subject, I think that the Germans didn’t necessarily think Patton was the “best” general because of his military accomplishments.
The Germans saw him as the most like their generals - aggressive, quick-thinking, no nonsense - and the Nazis tended to think of themselves as superior to everyone, including militarily. 
Since they were the best, and Patton was the most like them, therefore Patton must be the best Allied general.

BTW, my money is on Dugout Douglas MacArthur being the most overrated. It was all about MacArthur.
Saying, “I shall return,” instead of we or us, strong-arming Roosevelt into attacking the Philippines and costing thousands of lives not only there but on islands like Peleliu because they had to be taken to cover his flank.
And even though the Philippines would have been lost anyway, he made very few good moves in defending it.
Even when he returned it was more about him returning than about the fighting.

He took a giant gamble at Inchon, and though it paid off, it led him to thinking he was the only one who knew better.

But this is about shortening the game. I just think it takes less time to, especially to new players, to buy at the end of the round instead of trying to guess what they are going to lose and buying units that way.
And like knp7765 said, you sometimes get stuck with units that you don’t need, or can’t really use anymore and you have to wait another turn to start getting back on track.

Got my dice today!

Awesome. Can’t wait to roll snake-eyes!

Who are the two Admirals on the map?

I’m assuming Nagumo and Spruance.

I’m not so sure. The new 1941 games says it’s based on the 1942 2nd edition rules. If 1941 is the intro game, we can possibly deduce that the 1942 rules won’t be too complicated.

I think it’s nice they are making the bigger map, but since I already made one, unless they change anything with the territories I don’t know if I’ll be getting this one.
Might try to get the new anti-aircraft artillery pieces and a new rule book from HBG if there are any changes, but I don’t think I’m paying $65 for a few new sculpts.

I think Uncrustable and Techroll should have to buy us all one copy of each of the new 1941 and 1942 games once they come out. Where they get that any of this could be a joke is beyond me.

I’d like to see them say that the new 1942 game is an April Fool’s joke like they thought 1941 was even though nothing about 1941 had anything to do with April 1.