Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse... (AK Site. AK-74 Discussion.)

Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse...
Author: Tomac	©	December 27, 2001 at 21:45:03
in reply to: Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse...* posted by zack on December 27, 2001 at 19:33:02*

> THe german army could not be compared to any other, their
> equipment was above all other of the time,

Not true. At the beginning of the war many Allied tanks
were superior to the existing German tanks. German tanks
were as successful as they were early on because the
Germans utilized superior strategy and tactics (ie:
Blitzkrieg). The M1 Garand was superior to the
Wermacht-issue bolt action Mauser. The Russian T-34 was
superior to the existing Mk-IVs (the German military wanted
to reverse-engineer the T-34 to produce a German version
instead of waiting for the Mk-V Panther). While some
examples of German military technology were superior (like
the dual-purpose FLAK-88) to their Allied counterparts it
was German training (on the squad level the Germans were
trained to think and react independently if the situation
called for it instead of blindly following stupid orders).

their mg 42 is
> still used by many countries as a mg, the only reason they
> lost the war, is because at the last minute hitler
> panicked, and diverted the troops that were going to
> trample the Kremlin only a few kilometers out of the
> kremlin, to come back and to be used on the new eastern
> front, if he wouldve spent a week or two totake the
> kremlibe, we may just be part of the 1,000 year reich
> today.

Wrong again. Hitler lost the war for a number of reasons.
Here are a few examples that contributed to the downfall of
the Reich long before they approached Moscow: 1) Failure to
remove Britain from the war entirely (either by treaty or
conquest). 2) During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe
switched from hitting the airfields to concentrate on
London. This allowed the RAF to recover and eventually
defeat the Luftwaffe. 3) Failure to remove Malta as a base
for Allied operations (this allowed the Allies to interdict
Rommel's supply lines in North Africa). 4) Because Hitler
thought it would be a "short war" German industry wasn't
put on a full war footing until too late. 5) Declaring war
on the US after Pearl Harbor. All of these contributed to
Germany's demise long before the German's approached
Moscow.

All historians will tell you if it wasnt for hitlers
> stupid choices, the war wouldve been won by germany hands
> down.

You can say that about *any* nation that lost a war (ie: If
it wasn't for the stupid choices made by the US we would
have "won" the war in Viet Nam "hands down").

And as for those blueprints, ill post them as soon as

> i scan them, internally they are prety close to the same
> thing, i can tell you that, and as for better manufactured,
> the MP 44 may have cost more, it was more durable, more
> accurate, because it was made beter.

Form follows function. Many of today's "best" firearms all
use a magazine fed rotating bolt gas-piston system which
are all very similar to the AK's (but I don't claim they
were copied from the AK). Where do you get your info that
the MP-44 is more accurate & more durable?

Sorry for my language,

> i just assumed that you were all Pimpmofo's as one of your
> members call themselves, or ku-klux-kurt olson as the other
> one calls themselve, they should be dragged and beaten.

Judge not, lest ye be judged... I take it you aren't
familiar with the pitfalls of "assuming" anything?

> Anyhoo, im glad there is at least one intellegent person on
> this discussion forum besides me. Oh, it isnt bright to
> argue the point just to tell you, im an expert of gun made
> from 1880 to 1950. Especially both world wars.

Unless you're working for the Smithsonian or the British
War Museum I take anyone's self-proclaimed title of "gun
expert" with a grain of salt. Your errors to day make my
point for me... Tomac

Follow Ups

Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse... zack 22:53:15 12/27/2001 (10)
- Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse... x-tap 23:10:46 12/27/2001 (9)
  - Re: I Do So Love Intelligent Discourse... zack 23:35:03 12/27/2001 (8)
    - Yeah, I'd be suprised PvtPyle 02:04:09 12/28/2001 (7)
      - Re: Yeah, I'd be suprised zack 05:13:04 12/28/2001 (6)
        
        Re: ok ss man x-tap 21:58:00 12/28/2001 (5)
        
        Re: ok ss man zack 01:57:46 12/29/2001 (4)
        
        Re: ok ss man x-tap 07:04:34 12/30/2001 (3)
        
        Re: ok ss man zack 06:34:48 1/22/2002 (2)
        
        Re: ok ss man dunkel 07:46:31 6/25/2002 (0)
        
        Re: ok ss man Dan J 01:56:22 2/19/2002 (0)

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
	E-Mail Notification: emails sent to you whenever someone replies.
Subject:
> > THe german army could not be compared to any other, their > > equipment was above all other of the time, > > Not true. At the beginning of the war many Allied tanks > were superior to the existing German tanks. German tanks > were as successful as they were early on because the > Germans utilized superior strategy and tactics (ie: > Blitzkrieg). The M1 Garand was superior to the > Wermacht-issue bolt action Mauser. The Russian T-34 was > superior to the existing Mk-IVs (the German military wanted > to reverse-engineer the T-34 to produce a German version > instead of waiting for the Mk-V Panther). While some > examples of German military technology were superior (like > the dual-purpose FLAK-88) to their Allied counterparts it > was German training (on the squad level the Germans were > trained to think and react independently if the situation > called for it instead of blindly following stupid orders). > > their mg 42 is > > still used by many countries as a mg, the only reason they > > lost the war, is because at the last minute hitler > > panicked, and diverted the troops that were going to > > trample the Kremlin only a few kilometers out of the > > kremlin, to come back and to be used on the new eastern > > front, if he wouldve spent a week or two totake the > > kremlibe, we may just be part of the 1,000 year reich > > today. > > Wrong again. Hitler lost the war for a number of reasons. > Here are a few examples that contributed to the downfall of > the Reich long before they approached Moscow: 1) Failure to > remove Britain from the war entirely (either by treaty or > conquest). 2) During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe > switched from hitting the airfields to concentrate on > London. This allowed the RAF to recover and eventually > defeat the Luftwaffe. 3) Failure to remove Malta as a base > for Allied operations (this allowed the Allies to interdict > Rommel's supply lines in North Africa). 4) Because Hitler > thought it would be a "short war" German industry wasn't > put on a full war footing until too late. 5) Declaring war > on the US after Pearl Harbor. All of these contributed to > Germany's demise long before the German's approached > Moscow. > > All historians will tell you if it wasnt for hitlers > > stupid choices, the war wouldve been won by germany hands > > down. > > You can say that about any nation that lost a war (ie: If > it wasn't for the stupid choices made by the US we would > have "won" the war in Viet Nam "hands down"). > > And as for those blueprints, ill post them as soon as > > > i scan them, internally they are prety close to the same > > thing, i can tell you that, and as for better manufactured, > > the MP 44 may have cost more, it was more durable, more > > accurate, because it was made beter. > > Form follows function. Many of today's "best" firearms all > use a magazine fed rotating bolt gas-piston system which > are all very similar to the AK's (but I don't claim they > were copied from the AK). Where do you get your info that > the MP-44 is more accurate & more durable? > > Sorry for my language, > > > i just assumed that you were all Pimpmofo's as one of your > > members call themselves, or ku-klux-kurt olson as the other > > one calls themselve, they should be dragged and beaten. > > Judge not, lest ye be judged... I take it you aren't > familiar with the pitfalls of "assuming" anything? > > > Anyhoo, im glad there is at least one intellegent person on > > this discussion forum besides me. Oh, it isnt bright to > > argue the point just to tell you, im an expert of gun made > > from 1880 to 1950. Especially both world wars. > > Unless you're working for the Smithsonian or the British > War Museum I take anyone's self-proclaimed title of "gun > expert" with a grain of salt. Your errors to day make my > point for me... Tomac
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL: