RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

thompsonx -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:04:49 PM)

MasDom:
I am a bit unclear here as to the religious, faggot,crazy land hungry dictator you are speaking of.  Are you talking about bush & co. or the guy from Iran who could use a barber.
thompson



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:18:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Since the military objectives of the British were in the first place unrealistic in this French grand plan, it is not surprising they were not achieved.



Stunning avoidance of the facts. If you're not prepared to consider points 1 to 5 of post 69 then there's nothing left to say.


There's no avoidance of any facts. The British objectives were unrealistic and you will read that in any military history be it British or German and most probably French (though my French doesn't allow for too much subtlety).

However, you will go out of your way to prove British incompetence at the highest level because it suits your politics. The fact was the British command did a damn sight better than you give them credit for. The biggest mistake Haig made was to go along with the French plan for political reasons rather than reject it for military reasons. Haig's idea for an attack in Flanders made far more sense than the Somme but he acquiesced in the face of French opposition. That is why Haig deserves his knackers snatched.

Anyway enough. We have obviously read different historians on this matter.



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:24:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Stunning avoidance of the facts. If you're not prepared to consider points 1 to 5 of post 69 then there's nothing left to say.



This should read post 70, not 69.



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:33:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Stunning avoidance of the facts. If you're not prepared to consider points 1 to 5 of post 69 then there's nothing left to say.



This should read post 70, not 69.


I've read it, most of what you say happened on the first day of the battle. The British did change tactics throughout the battle which you say they didn't.

For brevity but I find it is similar to what I've read written by noted historians...

It is difficult to declare the Battle of the Somme a victory for either side. The British and French did succeed in capturing ground but little more than 5 miles (8 km) at the deepest point of penetration, well short of their original objectives. The British themselves had gained approximately only 2 miles and lost about 420,000 soldiers in the process, meaning that a centimetre cost about 2 men. Taking a long-term view, the Battle of the Somme delivered more benefits for the British than it did for the Germans. As British historian Gary Sheffield said, "The battle of the Somme was not a victory in itself, but without it the Entente would not have emerged victorious in 1918."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:40:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Stunning avoidance of the facts. If you're not prepared to consider points 1 to 5 of post 69 then there's nothing left to say.



This should read post 70, not 69.


I've read it, most of what you say happened on the first day of the battle. The British did change tactics throughout the battle which you say they didn't.

For brevity but I find it is similar to what I've read written by noted historians...

It is difficult to declare the Battle of the Somme a victory for either side. The British and French did succeed in capturing ground but little more than 5 miles (8 km) at the deepest point of penetration, well short of their original objectives. The British themselves had gained approximately only 2 miles and lost about 420,000 soldiers in the process, meaning that a centimetre cost about 2 men. Taking a long-term view, the Battle of the Somme delivered more benefits for the British than it did for the Germans. As British historian Gary Sheffield said, "The battle of the Somme was not a victory in itself, but without it the Entente would not have emerged victorious in 1918."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme


What does your above quote have to do with our original starting point i.e. the relative success of British and French forces?



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:44:11 PM)

Plenty. The British objectives were more unrealistic than the French objectives and despite a bad start changed tactics and by the time of the end of the Somme did rather better than you say they did in comparison to the French.

In fact to say the whole idea of the Battle for the Somme was probably misconceived and it was a French idea, I think that takes some credit away from the French for a start!



basicinsight -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 3:46:58 PM)

Wow.  And I thought I was just taking issue with someone suggesting that a people are worthy only of contempt (oh, and some lazy stereotyping) if their country's military has performed poorly in the last century. 

quote:

The fact that they are a bunch of chicken shits that have run from every adversity for the last several decades and are apparently more worried about their stomachs than the welfare of other nations?


Well, you're apparently Canadian, so I'll grant you that.  But it's not really fair to single France out for this, because most countries don't really care much about the welfare of other nations either.  Although I will say that it's important to distinguish here between a people and a government (or series of governments).



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 4:22:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Plenty. The British objectives were more unrealistic than the French objectives and despite a bad start changed tactics and by the time of the end of the Somme did rather better than you say they did in comparison to the French.

In fact to say the whole idea of the Battle for the Somme was probably misconceived and it was a French idea, I think that takes some credit away from the French for a start!


Have you seen this section from your own wikipedia link:

British progress astride the Albert-Bapaume road was likewise a failure, despite the explosion of the two mines at La Boisselle. Here another tragic advance was made by the Tyneside Irish Brigade of the 34th Division which started nearly one mile from the German front line, in full view of the defenders' machine guns, and was effectively wiped out before it reached its own friendly forward trench line.
In the sector south of the road, the French divisions had greater success. Here the German defences were relatively weak, and the French artillery, which was superior in numbers and experience to the British, was highly effective. From the town of Montauban to the Somme River, all the first day objectives were reached. Though the French XX Corps was to only act in a supporting role in this sector, in the event they would help lead the way. South of the Somme, French forces fared very well, surpassing their intended objectives. The I Colonial Corps departed their trenches at 9:30 am as part of a feint meant to lure the Germans opposite into a false sense of security. The feint was successful as, like the French divisions to the north, they too advanced easily. In under an hour, they had stormed Fay, Dompierre, Becquincourt and attained a foothold on the Flaucourt plateau. The entire German first line was in French hands. By 1100 hrs, the second line - marked by Assevillers, Herbecourt and Feuillères - was reached without even having to send in reserves. To the right of the Colonial Corps, the XXXV Corps also attacked at 9:30 am but, having only one division in the first line, had made less progress. Nevertheless, all first-day objectives were met. The Germans trenches had been completely pulverized. The enemy had been completely surprised by the infantry attack. On the north bank, the French had advanced 1,600 yards (1.5 km) and on the south, 2,200 yards (2 km).
 
This shows a fairly comprehensive picture of French gains. They had to stop and wait for the British to link up and push on. Unfortunately, the British plan was poorly thought out and poorly executed so it didn't happen. See points 1-5 of post 70.
 
Now, this whole discussion started when I said the French broke through German lines where the British could not and you would not accept it. Your own link supports this.
 
 



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 4:33:42 PM)

meatcleaver, the above quotation from your own link completely contradicts your statement in post 34 as follows:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

While the British and the Canadians were bogged down at the Somme the French broke through.

The difference was this: the British and Canadians were rigid in their military strategy - bombard the Germans lines from long range, stop the bombardment, wait and run. By the time they got out of their trenches the Germans were sat waiting with all sorts of machinery

The French were less rigid. They bombarded on a short term range and as soon as the guns stopped were out and at them - consolidtaed a few hundred yards and then bombarded again and so on.

Plus, between 1914 and 1916 the French more or less fought the war on their own and stilll did the most damage on the Somme in 1916. This is the problem with the British Empire - greatness in the mind.

REPLY : meatcleaver.

You really ought to reread your history of WWI, you are just showing your ignorance of British achievements in WWI. You are spouting the anti-war propaganda that circulated Britain in the 20s and took hold as national myth.




meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 10:41:26 PM)

The French fought from better positions and were facing a weaker German defence than the British and were better equiped. From the point of view of the British because of the lay of the land and the experienced German defenders they were facing, attack from the the British position was misconceived. Haig was aware of this which his why he preferred to attack in Flanders. However, for political reasons he went along with the French. As I have said, if the British command wanted their knackers snatching it was for agreeing with the French plan, everything else was foreseeable which was why Haig was not enthusiatic about it. However, politics won over military prudence, always a problem with allies as seen in many wars.



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/21/2007 11:46:18 PM)

No meatcleaver. Read post 89 (originally post 34) and you'll see you attempted to say I didn't know what I was talking about, I ought to re-read history, I was spouting anti-war propaganda and my comment was myth.

Now, you're agreeing with me but adding the French had an advantage. If you has said this in the first place we wouldn't have had this farce of a conversation.

At this point, you're not even man enough to offer that your original comment to me was misplaced. Waste of time.



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/22/2007 12:00:45 AM)

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying to say the French performed better when they started from a more advantageous position is disingenuous. It is also disingenous to suggest the French command performed better when the misconceived plan was theirs.



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/22/2007 4:50:05 AM)

Let's go back to your first post on this NG. You mention rigid tactics of the British and Canadians using the Somme as an example, implying the their tactics were such throughout the war.

I then said taking a single battle in a war to prove a point was taking the evidence out of context, that you had to look at the whole war.

You then said your point was limited to the Somme. Even if it was, the Somme as I said was misconceived and the brainchild of the French. If the French can make such a great strategic era that cost so many lives against the advice and preference of the British, then saying the French were more adaptable in their fucked up plan, it is hardly a recommendation of the French command.

Take the war all the way through and you will see by the end of the war the British had formed tactics that were pushing the Germans back and the war was all but won by the time the Americans came into the war.

 
The difference was this: the British and Canadians were rigid in their military strategy - bombard the Germans lines from long range, stop the bombardment, wait and run. By the time they got out of their trenches the Germans were sat waiting with all sorts of machinery

The French were less rigid. They bombarded on a short term range and as soon as the guns stopped were out and at them - consolidtaed a few hundred yards and then bombarded again and so on.

Plus, between 1914 and 1916 the French more or less fought the war on their own and stilll did the most damage on the Somme in 1916. This is the problem with the British Empire - greatness in the mind.



SirKenin -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/22/2007 9:36:32 AM)

meatcleaver:

We know he is wrong.  The well documented evidence presented all supports this position.  He has taken the evidence and attempted to twist it to suit his needs, but that does not change the fact that he is wrong.

However, we know from all his other posts that he is almost always wrong, but he will bs his way through it and he will repeat himself over and over and over again to bash you into the ground or get you to finally give up with frustration, thus purporting to present himself as the victor.

What I am saying, basically, is that you are wasting your breath and energies.  He will NEVER yield.  If you noticed I just gave up on him.  His type is well known on the internet and they even made a caricature and a write up about his style on a website I visited a while back that was quite priceless.  I would not bother wasting your time.  Let him think whatever he wants, and let any small-minded followers think the same.

Besides, is he really that signicant in the grand scheme of things that it really matters what he thinks?  I would dare say not.   A discussion is one thing.  Trying to talk facts and convince him to alter his thinking?  Good fucking luck.

Just a thought.



NorthernGent -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/22/2007 10:06:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Let's go back to your first post on this NG. You mention rigid tactics of the British and Canadians using the Somme as an example, implying the their tactics were such throughout the war.

I then said taking a single battle in a war to prove a point was taking the evidence out of context, that you had to look at the whole war.

You then said your point was limited to the Somme. Even if it was, the Somme as I said was misconceived and the brainchild of the French. If the French can make such a great strategic era that cost so many lives against the advice and preference of the British, then saying the French were more adaptable in their fucked up plan, it is hardly a recommendation of the French command.

Take the war all the way through and you will see by the end of the war the British had formed tactics that were pushing the Germans back and the war was all but won by the time the Americans came into the war.

 
The difference was this: the British and Canadians were rigid in their military strategy - bombard the Germans lines from long range, stop the bombardment, wait and run. By the time they got out of their trenches the Germans were sat waiting with all sorts of machinery

The French were less rigid. They bombarded on a short term range and as soon as the guns stopped were out and at them - consolidtaed a few hundred yards and then bombarded again and so on.

Plus, between 1914 and 1916 the French more or less fought the war on their own and stilll did the most damage on the Somme in 1916. This is the problem with the British Empire - greatness in the mind.



Tell you what, I'm laughing my head off here at:

1) Your deliberate misrepresentation of my posts 27 and 30 (the starting point of this farce). I stated the Somme three times. After this, I even offered to mail you a documentary of the Somme and you just ignored it.

2) Your inability to put your hands up and say "yeah, I was wrong to say you don't know what you're talking about and I was wrong to say you're parroting myth".

3) Your last comment about how the "war was all but the won" by the time the Americans joined - no point in educating you because you lack the humility to learn. If another poster comes in and fancies a chat about the changing fortunes of the Allies after the Americans joined then I'm game enough for that - but with you, waste of time for the reasons stated in 1 and 2.

Adios.



meatcleaver -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/22/2007 12:10:53 PM)

Again, whereas the Somme and Passchendaele remain familiar names, the huge successes of the British and Dominion forces under Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig between 8 August and 11 November 1918 are now largely forgotten by the British public. 

<image removed>

The Royal Flying Corps dropped supplies by parachute
By August 1918, Haig's forces were employing supply, gun-carrying and fighting tanks; ground-attack aircraft; armoured cars; motor machine-gun units; wireless; overhead machine gun barrages; and supply drops of ammunition by parachute.

As the historian Ian Malcolm Brown has pointed out in his recent book British Logistics on the Western Font (Praeger 1998), all this was made possible by an excellent administrative and transport system that, in 1918, not only enabled Haig to deliver attacks of tremendous power but also to switch the point of attack to another sector at short notice - so keeping the Germans off balance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/world_war_i/197586.stm

Yes, the war was all but won by the time the Americans entered. If you read the German accounts they knew they had lost before the US entered the war and them entering it confirmed it for them.

The Somme was a French plan and misconceived. It is ridiculous to say the French out performed the British command in the field when it was a French plan that was misconceived.

I'd give you a few book titles to read but you wouldn't read them.



thompsonx -> RE: the shi* is hitting the fan (1/24/2007 10:56:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackKnight

"Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!"
                                                                           -Ripley, aliens
I want the space shuttle to see a reflection of itself when it passes over (Iran,Iraq,N.Korea,)


BlackKnight:
This post would seem to be at odds with your profile...the do unto others as you would have them do unto you part, not the I am a jerk and I am an asshole part.
Is there any place else you would like to murder innocent bystanders because of your perception of their leaders.
thompson



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125