The Thompson was a pretty bad war implement. It was used mostly to glamorize the war, since the gangters in the US used them. It was far too heavy for war, which is why the BAR was issued.

actually the BAR was issued back in ww1 except that us soldiers didn't use it because the american generals didn;t what a gun of it's calliber to fall in the hands of the germans.

At 6/26/05 08:08 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/25/05 08:43 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/24/05 07:01 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

This was mainly due to the change in leadership...

The first offer of peace was made while Chamberlain was still in power, on October 6th, 1939.

Hitler had hardly finished off Poland at that point. Of course they weren't going to accept a peace.

Hitler offered a peace deal before the war, after Poland fell and after France fell. Chamberlain was in power for two of them. There was a seven month period between october 6, 1939 to may 10, 1940 without any German aggression where Chamberlain was free to look into peace and failed to do so.

At 6/26/05 09:31 AM, commie-hentai wrote: lol. can anyone tell me whats the greatest weapon used in WW2? i think its the PPSH,T-34, sherman tank, tiger tank and MP40

the BAR, based totally on longevity. The M1 could be a close second. Third is the russian sniper rifles. accurate, deadly, and cheap.

and whats the most liable and useless weapon used in WW2? i think its the thompson SMG and japanese small tanks.

the sherman tank. the US Marine. and the German General, (not including Rommel...)

At 6/26/05 10:08 PM, Jerconjake wrote: The V2 Rocket, not because of its battle effectiveness, but because of the sheer leap forward in technology that it represented. The same would be true for the Me262.

Commie is asking what is the best weapon, not the most tehcnologically advanced. I do agree with you to an extent though.

My opinion? The Liberators, Flying Fortress', and Superfortresses. Those really are the weapons that defined the war, the bombing. At least for the American and British populations. They really were the difference between earlier, ground wars, and the destructive modern wars.

Modern wars can be won with trashy guns. Wars cannot be won with trashy bombers in my opinion.

Kind of random, but I just wondering, has anyone here seen the movie Tuskegee Airmen? Really good movie in my opinion....

Anyways, I'm sure everyone here knows about Mussolini's disastrous invasion of Greece...I was just wondering, but what was the strategical importance of him doing that? What did he have to gain by invading them?

At 6/27/05 03:12 AM, HailHail1997 wrote: What did he have to gain by invading them?

Ego. Mussolini was a straight up fool. Why else would he start invading worthless countries like Greece and other African countries?

I guess it could be argued the allies could land there so he could invade there and secure it. However, you would have to be dumb to invade that place. I mean, just look at the map of the place. Mountanious, islandy, worthless. Greece el worthless oh.

True, I can see ego being his motivation I mean Hitler was conquering stuff left and right and had perfected Fascism better in Germany than Mussolini did in Italy (even though Mussolini founded Fascism with the "Fascio di Combattimiento" Party), and Italy gets to be the first European country defeated by an African nation (Ethiopia). Plus he was always talking about creating another Roman Empire, so yea the guy had a big ego did it to make himself feel better.

At 6/27/05 02:47 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/26/05 10:08 PM, Jerconjake wrote: The V2 Rocket, not because of its battle effectiveness, but because of the sheer leap forward in technology that it represented. The same would be true for the Me262.

Commie is asking what is the best weapon, not the most tehcnologically advanced. I do agree with you to an extent though.

Good thing you mentioned that, it's not like I provided an explanation for my choice or anything. He said "the best weapon," which is very non-specific criteria.

At 6/27/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Good thing you mentioned that, it's not like I provided an explanation for my choice or anything. He said "the best weapon," which is very non-specific criteria.

Fair enough. I guess your interpretation is fair enough, even though I didnt read it that way. Guess I shoulda kept my mouth shut :o

At 6/27/05 08:03 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/27/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Good thing you mentioned that, it's not like I provided an explanation for my choice or anything. He said "the best weapon," which is very non-specific criteria.

Fair enough. I guess your interpretation is fair enough, even though I didnt read it that way. Guess I shoulda kept my mouth shut :o

DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN. Haha, just kidding. I thought you were being a smart ass. :P

At 6/27/05 02:47 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: My opinion? The Liberators, Flying Fortress', and Superfortresses. Those really are the weapons that defined the war, the bombing. At least for the American and British populations. They really were the difference between earlier, ground wars, and the destructive modern wars.

Modern wars can be won with trashy guns. Wars cannot be won with trashy bombers in my opinion.

Yes, but look at Vietnam. we had the upper hand on them in every area, but we still lost. Even with the B-52, we couldn't stop the Viet Cong. The NVA never really used an Air Force, and they kicked our butts. Explain that, Eisenhower....

At 6/28/05 02:41 PM, fastbow wrote: Yes, but look at Vietnam. we had the upper hand on them in every area, but we still lost. Even with the B-52, we couldn't stop the Viet Cong. The NVA never really used an Air Force, and they kicked our butts. Explain that, Eisenhower....

The war was a political loss, not a military loss. And kicked our butts?

Around 60k Americans died and another 500 for Australia and 38 for New Zeland. It has been estimated that about 1.5 million Vietnamese combatants died. That is hardly an asswhooping for the Americans.

The war was lost on the political front and on the home front, not on the front.

And bombers did not define that war as much because it was a guerilla battle against people with little to no industry or rallying points to bomb. Id say the choppers defined that war for the Americans at least.

I will give you that point, but remember, technology doesn't always beat stubbornness...

At 6/28/05 11:51 PM, fastbow wrote: I will give you that point, but remember, technology doesn't always beat stubbornness...

Very much true. For those that have more to fight for and a continuing willingness to fight, that is 3/4 the battle right there.

At 6/29/05 12:50 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Very much true. For those that have more to fight for and a continuing willingness to fight, that is 3/4 the battle right there.

Well in modern world, technology is something we can't say we're independent of.

See, in modern warefare, enemies can be taken out from a distance there you can't see who's wasting your men.

But, ofcourse, the psycology of men on the front and for those who fight in rough terrain, has always and will always be a huge factor of how everything would end.

Especially for those small groups, and especially those like SAS. The will to atchieve the goal.

Small groups of resistance and terrorist groups are also hard fought, though because of their strong will.

That is why goverments today puts alot of money on new ways to make the enemy lose their hope and will to fight. Something which has been very successful in the war in Iraq.

At 6/29/05 07:58 PM, Andersson wrote:

At 6/29/05 12:50 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Very much true. For those that have more to fight for and a continuing willingness to fight, that is 3/4 the battle right there.

That is why goverments today puts alot of money on new ways to make the enemy lose their hope and will to fight. Something which has been very successful in the war in Iraq.

Huh? No it hasn't. They've pulled out all the technological stops and still the violence has been steadily intensifying. The US Army is designed to fight other armies, and is extremely effective in doing so. But all the smart weapons in the world won't stop an invisible enemy who could be anyone, anywhere, anytime. Being able to shoot an enemy without him seeing you doesn't mean much if you can't see him.

At 6/29/05 11:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Being able to shoot an enemy without him seeing you doesn't mean much if you can't see him.

Ofcourse you can see who you are shooting at, but the one who you shoot on can't see you.

The airbattles of today ain't as they were for ten years ago. You don't go into close combat airbattles anymore. A computer track the enemy while he may be as far away to the horizon, you fire your missiles and turn to go home again.

The same goes with helicopters which can fight enemies on the ground. They are so far away so the sound from the engine, weapon and so on can't be heard.

What those you're shooting at will see is that everyone around you starts getting shot.

Same thing goes with the Barret M82 A1. A sniper rifle which have been trained with in Stockholm. They wasted hostage takers in a skyscraper in central Stockholm from another skyscraper far outside of the inner city.

Which means, you can fight most things aslong as you got an open view.
I'll get back to everything about the information war which you doubted.

At 6/30/05 07:12 AM, Andersson wrote:

At 6/29/05 11:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Being able to shoot an enemy without him seeing you doesn't mean much if you can't see him.

Ofcourse you can see who you are shooting at, but the one who you shoot on can't see you.

Sure, that's all well and good in pitched battle, but not when you're fighting an insurgency. There aren't clear targets to attack, since it could be anyone. All the technology in the world goes out the window in that scenario. The only thing that can help you then is to have troops that are better trained and well supplied.

At 7/3/05 08:08 PM, Jerconjake wrote: The only thing that can help you then is to have troops that are better trained and well supplied.

Well, those troops are special trained soldiers like those from GEK Cobra or SAS.

Well equiped in this case means that they have been through special trainings (They're simply the best) and that they are equiped with the best material (Technology) and that they have as much information as possible.

And the bigger part of the information comes via technology as satelites and bugging their telephones but ofcourse also from insiders.

Please don't take offense in this but, although I respect the Japanese as people I just went
"WTF????" when I read Ghost Soldiers. (A book)

During WWII wasn't the Japanese fighing for Asia for "Asians"?
Why in the hell did they torture, rape, steal, pillage and do all the nasty stuff to the southeast asians? Totally weird and downright confusing.

Can any of ya guys answer this??

At 8/6/05 08:44 AM, deathmonger666 wrote: Why in the hell did they torture, rape, steal, pillage and do all the nasty stuff to the southeast asians? Totally weird and downright confusing.

Can any of ya guys answer this??

They wanted to expand their empire
They thought the Chinese were a lower form of life. Kinda like the germans with the Jews. The rape of Nanjing is probably the worst atrocity

At 8/6/05 08:44 AM, deathmonger666 wrote: Can any of ya guys answer this?

A book is a book.

Nah but the Japs fought for Japan. For example, the Chineses was invaded several times by the Japs.

They fought for their belief, a circle of infinite welfare.

For remembering the history of World War II:

At 11:02 a.m., August 9, 1945, an atomic bomb exploded over Nagasaki.

That is, today, 60 years ago and it was the beginning of the end of one of the largest war in the history of mankind..

I just wanted to say something about this. Unfourtainly I missed the opportunity to say something at the date it was 60 years since the Hiroshima bombing, but I wasn't home then.

I was watching something on the History Channel I thought was prety cool.

Any of you ever hear of these caves of billion and billion of dollars of gold from Japanese exploitations of the countries they counqueored burried in the Phillippennes I think? Its estimated there is like 100 billion dollars, 1945 money, buried in there. All I gotta say, damn. I wish I had it.

Id be filthy friggin rich.

The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army
that is false...canada help win many battles and with the help of brittain they retained vimy ridge from the germans against many odds

At 2/27/05 01:16 PM, ctrlkey wrote: you place a huge big star on for the U.S.A. I see your probably American and in the American textbooks history is altered.

uh....i'm American and all but in the American History Textbooks it's not altered what about German or French or Russian or Canadian WHAT ABOUT THEIR SO CALLED "HISTORY TEXTBOOKS" MAN U GOTTA TAKE IT OUT ON ONLY THE AMERICANS man ur americanAcist(racist to americans)

The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army. HItler was divided on two fronts and the soviets outnumbered them greatly. they destroyed the germans, raped their women and took back everything that was theirs. If it wasn't for the Soviets, the Allies might not of been victorious in WWII.

WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD IT THERE did u have to put that? WHY DID U PUT "raped their women"....IS EVERY1 ON THIS SITE PERVERTED!?

Oh, and the U.S.A. only entered the war when they got attacked at pearl harbour. If they never got attacked they probably would of just sat there and wat ched as hundreds of thousands of men died. oh, and all americans are like" WE SAVED U GUYS" ......that is not true at all. I won't even go into it but even if the U.S. never came in the war, we would of still been victorious.

Your right they only got in AFTER Pearl Harbour and i don't think they really said "WE SAVED U GUYS"....man this guys an idiot....not that i got anything against him

to that i say, gg nub.

wtf is up with nub? i mean come on........not all of us took history 101.....or even history 1-100 so he's not really a nub/n00b/newb/noob and doesn't that word mean "doesn't know how to do sumthing" or sumthing like that not doesn't know history.................I MEAN COME ON

Go research crap more, plz. Save alot of time and humiliation.

uh....WHATS WITH THIS.....no more comment

At 8/29/05 09:59 AM, eazy-eeee wrote: The ALLIES only WON WWII because of the soviet army
That is false... Canada helped to win many battles and with the help of Brittain they retained vimy ridge from the germans against many odds.

What he's trying to say is wrong, but in one aspect, without Sovjet, the war in Europe had been alot harder to fight.

Some have been trying to tell who made most in the war. One thing I do know is that Canada wouldn't been able to do as much as Sovjet, but Sovjet didn't win the war on it's own, and neither it would have been good.

Without the allied troops from the west, Sovjet would have taken over more of Europe, and not only the countries as the Balcan and so on who was opressed under the Sovjet dictatorship.

Everyone played a role.

At 9/19/05 09:44 AM, Andersson wrote: Without the allied troops from the west, Sovjet would have taken over more of Europe, and not only the countries as the Balcan and so on who was opressed under the Sovjet dictatorship.

Everyone played a role.

Hark! Is that an admission that without D-Day the Red Army would have conquered all of Europe? So, then, the Soviets still could have won, even without the Allies.

At 9/20/05 01:32 AM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 9/19/05 09:44 AM, Andersson wrote: Without the allied troops from the west, Sovjet would have taken over more of Europe, and not only the countries as the Balcan and so on who was opressed under the Sovjet dictatorship.

Everyone played a role.

Hark! Is that an admission that without D-Day the Red Army would have conquered all of Europe? So, then, the Soviets still could have won, even without the Allies.

I wouldn't have put it past Stalin to sacrifice even more of his men. But he was practically begging for the Allies to open up a second front on Europe. Without any Allied intervention in Europe, the Germans may have beat Russia.

At 9/20/05 01:32 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Is that an admission that without D-Day the Red Army would have conquered all of Europe?

It's an admission that Sovjet would have continued to take over more countries, not only those they took and opressed.

So, then, the Soviets still could have won, even without the Allies.

That's always a possibility, one of the reasons to why U.S.A. and Great Britain wanted to be there in German when Hitler was defeated was that they didn't want Sovjet to get any further.

It's pretty obvious that the Sovjetian army had intetions more than just to defeat Hitler.