- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Two Civil War Veterans Speak With Each Other on Camera
Posted on 6/7/23 at 3:16 pm to DakIsNoLB
Posted on 6/7/23 at 3:16 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
Quantity was a quality all it's own with them.
Maybe "sucked" was incorrect on my part. From what I read, and could very well be wrong about, Patton wanted the Sherman in Europe because (as you said) they were easy to produce and could overwhelm the German tanks. But when the invasion happened, the hedgerows and all that made it difficult on the Shermans and they had a hard time penetrating the front armor of the German Panzers.
But we had superior air power so it all worked out.
1
Posted on 6/7/23 at 3:28 pm to Cuz413
quote:
So to raze and plunder an area out of spite is no different than dropping a bomb as a response to an ambush?
After the end was no longer in doubt, both sides got tired of the other's promise to fight until the last person. Thus, they decided to extinguish the will of the other side to fight. To make clear that continued resistance was worthless.
I think your take is based on a less than complete understanding on history.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Not really. Total war is actually an anomaly in history. Civilizations since the beginning of recorded history normally followed certain “rules” that their societies found acceptable.
Really? What did Rome do to Carthage? What did the Mongols do to... well everyone? What did the Greeks do to the Persians? What did the Japanese do to the Chinese? What did the Russians do to the Germans?
Gentlemanly warfare is what is rare, a phenomenon of the past 300 years. Oh and if you think it's beyond other European powers, look at the bombing of Dresden.
If people understood that there is no such thing as non-combatants on the battlefield, then maybe they would wait until there is good reason to go to war.
History
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:26 pm to Beauw
quote:
Maybe "sucked" was incorrect on my part. From what I read, and could very well be wrong about, Patton wanted the Sherman in Europe because (as you said) they were easy to produce and could overwhelm the German tanks. But when the invasion happened, the hedgerows and all that made it difficult on the Shermans and they had a hard time penetrating the front armor of the German Panzers.
But we had superior air power so it all worked out.
One-on-one it was outclassed. Luckily, it was rarely one-on-one. German tanks were much easier to destroy at the sides or the back. The hedge rows would stymie any armored force; they strongly favored the defense and allowed infantry an easier time to get at them. An interesting innovation was welded steel "blades" on the front of Shermans. They could then crash through the hedge rows to better avoid ambushes.
Air power and superior artillery coordination due to radios. The 105mm howitzer was a wonder and we had copious amounts of shells.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:29 pm to DakIsNoLB
every.... fricking thread... devolves into a pissing contest between a couple of posters arguing about minutiae that has nothing to do with the subject 
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:33 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
It was a shitty tank.
no it wasn't. it was one of the best tanks in history. they could be manufactured by the hundreds of thousands, shipped half awaiy across the world and used effectively by the usa, canadians, the polish, the french and the russians with minimal training. if you could drive a truck you could drive a Sherman. it got great gas mileage (for a tank) and a 75mm gun. infantry support was it's mission and it was the best. don't know if we could won the war in Europe without it. most people, perhaps yourself tend to compare weapons with the enemy's weapons when in reality rarely were there tank on tank battles.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:41 pm to Cuz413
quote:
In their home state and counties? You do realize the North invaded the South, right?
Your argument depends on our accepting that secession was legal. We do not accept that, therefore that territory was the United States of America and by rights the US Army can be there.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:49 pm to Boss13
quote:
Really? What did Rome do to Carthage? What did the Mongols do to... well everyone? What did the Greeks do to the Persians? What did the Japanese do to the Chinese? What did the Russians do to the Germans? Gentlemanly warfare is what is rare, a phenomenon of the past 300 years. Oh and if you think it's beyond other European powers, look at the bombing of Dresden. If people understood that there is no such thing as non-combatants on the battlefield, then maybe they would wait until there is good reason to go to war.
It’s got nothing to do with gentlemanliness or non combatants. Aside from Carthage and a few select instances of the Mongols most wars throughout history haven’t been fought to completely destroy the economies or even cultures of the enemy. In fact warfare was probably more “gentlemanly” prior to the civil war. Invading and conquering new lands was kinda pointless if you completely destroyed the infrastructure and economy you were attempting to take over. The Greeks rarely did it, the Persians hardly ever did. The Mongols only burnt cities if they resisted. Sure everyone took slaves but that was just kind of normal.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 4:51 pm to Penrod
quote:
therefore that territory was the United States of America and by rights the US Army can be there.
Not anymore however. In large part due to the way the Union army conducted itself in the south.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 5:07 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Jack Hinson piled up them union officer bodies, over in Land between the Lakes
Posted on 6/7/23 at 5:19 pm to PetroBabich
I’m sure you love what Sherman did to the American Indian after the war too.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 5:24 pm to Boss13
quote:
Sherman was no more a terrorist than Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr, who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
At least Sherman didn’t name his horse after his mom like Tibbets did his aircraft. Certainly questionable activity by OT standards.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 6:52 pm to SM6
quote:it certainly is but most likely through no fault of his own. The lost cause was taught in schools throughout America, not just the south, and only in the past 10-15 years less so. Plus it’s really hard for people to ever see their ancestors as the bad guys
I think your take is based on a less than complete understanding on history.
Posted on 6/7/23 at 8:42 pm to Penrod
"We"? You do not speak for me. You may think so and that is ok. Many think otherwise. That is ok also. These threads are so repetitive and useless. Nothing to do with the original OP.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News