about those halftracks...

Huffy · Post by **Huffy** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 3:11 am

Well,...any of you who read the previous post...the young man who agrueed about no half tracks being used WW2. I took my papers...pics....and addresses into work,...presented them...and he at first looked surprised,...looked at it all...read a bit....then....still denied it.We again debated it for a while...then i just dropped it.....had to go back to work.
So that is where it was left...he did say they had them in Korea though...hmmmmm. what to do with these kids....
take care....
Huffy

maniacalmonkey · Post by **maniacalmonkey** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 3:27 am

If I understood correctly, that young man is in the army - why not let him ask some of his superiors if he's so sure? I'm sure a few weeks of latrine duty for "being slightly dim-witted" will set him straight

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:32 am

Originally posted by maniacalmonkey
If I understood correctly, that young man is in the army - why not let him ask some of his superiors if he's so sure? I'm sure a few weeks of latrine duty for "being slightly dim-witted" will set him straight

That sounds good. Or have him call up an NCO at the home of the US Armour.

"Excuse me, sir, Pvt. Pyle here. This guy's trying to tell me we used Halftracks in WWII. Isn't that a load of BS, or what?"

Just ask him to bring the fragmented remains of the telephone with him to work as proof.

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:39 am

Thanks for keeping us posted. This is really bizzar though!

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 9:15 am

My wife actually thought that South Africa had fought on the Axis side in WW2, and tried to persuade my father of it. He proceded to calmly, politely, and at length, disabuse her of that notion.

And does anyone else here cringe when people who should know refer to a 'Panzer tank'?

troopie

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 10:51 am

You think thats bad. Last night on the news (Los Angeles) the news reporter was talking about the upcoming air show at Edwards AFB, and she said they would have B-17 jets there! I've never seen one of those.

Huffy · Post by **Huffy** » Sat Oct 26, 2002 4:55 pm

B-17 jets...now that would have been neat.

Heide · Post by **Heide** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:08 am

Originally posted by troopie
And does anyone else here cringe when people who should know refer to a 'Panzer tank'?

Ugh, that does irritate the hell out of me.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 4:02 am

Originally posted by troopie
And does anyone else here cringe when people who should know refer to a 'Panzer tank'?

That there Panzer tank shot a SAM missile! I have JPEG graphics of it on the HDD Drive of my PC Computer, but my CPU Processor is too slow.

challenge · Post by **challenge** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 10:06 pm

I'm almost sorry I read that.

Figmo · Post by **Figmo** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:21 pm

Originally posted by Irinami

That there Panzer tank shot a SAM missile! I have JPEG graphics of it on the HDD Drive of my PC Computer, but my CPU Processor is too slow.

LOL - That's good!! I've had to deal with people that do that - ARGH!!!

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 6:09 am

Guys, it gets worse. Lots worse. The so-called "History Channel" (which used to be halfway decent) recently referred to a sub-machinegun as a "sidearm" - they pretty obviously don't know the difference.

These are the people who can do a full one hour show about Guad and not once mention the role the jungle played in defeating the IJA. (If you haven't already, read the Richard Frank book on Watchtower, it is in all respects a great piece of writing.)

The one that got me, though, was the assertion that there was nothing - absolutely nothing - our enemies possessed in WW2 with the firepower of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Really. Those who faced German automatic weapons will be interested to learn that.

There are other even worse examples, I am sure. Any piece of doo-doo goes on television. People simpy don't know the difference - and don't care either. Anyone remember the PR for the TV show on Midway, claiming that battle was the first ever conducted by participants who never came within sight of each other? As if Coral Sea a few weeks prior had never taken place?

Why bother to teach history in our schools? Who cares? Too few people to make a difference.

P.S. Anyone know what hAppened to the old A&E series "Fields of Armor"? It was the greatest thing since sliced bread or canned beer for the neophyte armor buff.

Bing

Figmo · Post by **Figmo** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:19 am

My favorite is when an "expert" refers to the "Battle of Britain"as the Blitzkrieg.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:44 am

Originally posted by Bing

The one that got me, though, was the assertion that there was nothing - absolutely nothing - our enemies possessed in WW2 with the firepower of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Really. Those who faced German automatic weapons will be interested to learn that.

This reminds me of the part of Mail Call on the flack jacket and bullet-proof vests. They asserted what sounded at first note to be that the Romans were the first people to make armour, and that the height of armour was the brigandine.

However, upon a more discerning viewing, what they were saying was:

"The first people to seriously make uniform issue armour for footsoldiers were the Romans with the lorica segmentica. ... The height of personal issue armour for the soldier was brigandine." Id est, other people made armour, and there was better armour than brigandine, but not standard-issue.

Likewise, it sounds like with the BAR you have to read between the lines. There was nothing our enemies possessed with the firepower of the BAR on a personal weapon level. The MG34 and 42 were generally crew-served weapons, so you could effectively divide their firepower amongst the crew. At the very least the entire squad humped ammo for the MG42, so that's still not quite as independent as the BAR. The Stg43(? not positive--the Wermacht precursor to the AK series) was similar, and issued on a relatively wider scale I believe, but the round was nowhere near as powerful. The BAR, IIRC, was deployed to an individual soldier who carried his entire weapon's ammo load (as in, other squaddies weren't expected by the REMF's to be carrying ammo for the BAR, as opposed to the MG34 or 42).

Which is the sad part about this. The History Channel "sells" their topic, instead of presenting it. Capice? So when you watch HC, read between the lines.

Oh yeah... I'm no expert. Most of this is based on my fuzzy memories.

Ograbme · Post by **Ograbme** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:58 am

Originally posted by Bing

. Anyone remember the PR for the TV show on Midway, claiming that battle was the first ever conducted by participants who never came within sight of each other? As if Coral Sea a few weeks prior had never taken place?

Bing

I remember a history teacher who knew this. On the other hand, he thought Coral Sea was fought by battleships lobbing shells over the horizion at each other :rolleyes:

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 10:13 am

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. The worst of the TV junk for me was the flat assertion that our aircraft carriers cannot be sunk. Anything that floats can be sunk, especially a carrier. Besides, put the elevators out of action and the carrier is no longer functional.

The comments on the BAR shed some light. The problem with considering the BAR as a "personal" weapon versus the German MG entries, is what US troopers used to say: Sure, the BAR is fired by one man, but it takes two men and a boy to carry the ammunition. So I guess it comes down to about the same thing. Don't know about maintainable rate of fire, no expert here either.

Bing

Toontje · Post by **Toontje** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 1:14 am

Isn't the BAR the thingy that jams every other round? Haven't noticed that tendency so far btw. in WaW

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 9:41 pm

Originally posted by Figmo
My favorite is when an "expert" refers to the "Battle of Britain"as the Blitzkrieg.

I do believe that it was refered to as "the blitz" in contempoary speech. Note that the term blitzkrieg is not in any WWII German doctrine. It was a propaganda term, not a military one.

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 9:42 pm

Additionally, I do not believe that any half-tracks were in WWII. Weren't they all really 3/4 tracks as the Ge 250 & 251 were?

Katana · Post by **Katana** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 9:46 pm

Eh?
I'm missing something here. What is a 3/4track? Are there 1/4 tracks as well?