Germany versus Britain - shocking statistics

[EternalOptimist]

Ah yes, I guess if you can just insult me then that proves you are right.

Just like when you tried arguing that single handed swords were superior to polearms on medieval battlefields and claimed that various armies like Samurai (not an army) and Teutonic knights (not an army and did not use single handed swords as primaries anyway) as additional examples after I explained why the Romans were freak exceptions to the rule.

You seemed to struggle to explain why a single handed sword (with at most 5 foot range) was better than a (polearm which has at the most about 17 feet of range).

Also you seemed to struggle with the idea that a padded jack and maille shirt renders single handed swords close to useless unless you thrust - in which case you simply have a very short spear. Whereas halberd, poleaxes etc will simply shatter the bones of the person wearing said armour.

Well, I suppose you do not need to make reasoned points when you can just throw insults.

Although, I did specify in my post that WW2 was not my period, perhaps you could explain why all of the points I mentioned are 'crap'?

I would genuinely like to know, I love to learn new things.

Although please try to use a little more reasoning and facts than last time, I felt like I was kicking a puppy and also you might not fail quite so badly?

Where on earth do you get the idea that the Russians were sent in to attack the Germans without guns ?

I didnt get much past that point

FYI the Russians were excellently equipped, they were just totally unprepared and most of their officers had been kiled in the purges. Their airforce was massive and their tanks far outmatched the germans, in both quality and numbers.
The Germans lost in Russia because of a political miscalculation. Hitler thought that once they had kicked the front door in, the regime would collapse. It didn't
So the Germans got hung up at Moscow and Leningrad and the Russians had 6 months of atrocious weather to regroup and recover. Which they did

[sasguru]

I thought you were out?

Why not stick to the subject of the thread and stop crapping on this forum as usual?
You were perma-banned because you're a cock and nothing seems to have changed.

[Scoobos]

The government isn't pursuing lassaiz faire economic policies. If it were there might be a growth in the industrial sector.
Here's a pretty graph...

give yourself a day off. A growth in a sector that government destroyed in the 80s.

[sasguru]

The industrial revolution happened in many many countries sas, not just Britain, although Britain was first. .

Thanks for repeating what I've said.

Why, have the laws of economics changed?.

If economics has laws, surely economists would be the richest people in the world?
All you'd have to do is learn the laws and predict the future.
Cretin.

It would if we fixed the money supply and let the market set the interest rates (also stopped deficit spending) and we would have never lost it all in the first place.

Ah so that's the reason why we lost manufacturing? Why don't you tell your economist friends, I'm sure they don't know that

[MyUserName]

Where on earth do you get the idea that the Russians were sent in to attack the Germans without guns ?
:

From history books - you should try it some time. It was common for the Russian infantry to have one gun between two. Sometimes some soldider did not even have that.

I didnt get much past that point
:

Perhaps you should have tried, you might have learned something.

FYI the Russians were excellently equipped, they were just totally unprepared and most of their officers had been kiled in the purges. Their airforce was massive and their tanks far outmatched the germans, in both quality and numbers.
:

The Russians were excellently equipped? Their tanks were superior to the German Panzers - in 1941? Could you please provide sources for this?

The Germans lost in Russia because of a political miscalculation. Hitler thought that once they had kicked the front door in, the regime would collapse. It didn't
So the Germans got hung up at Moscow and Leningrad and the Russians had 6 months of atrocious weather to regroup and recover. Which they did
:

Where do you place 'the front door'?

The Germans were rushing to Moscow but could not quite get there before winter, although they got within about 25 miles ISTR.

The Russian army was better equiped than the German army in terms of winter survival, including ski units etc. The sieges of Lenningrad and Moscow cost Germany dearly as the Russians simply had number to throw forward and politcal officers who shot anyone who retreated, the Germans could not match that loss rate and fight the cold at the same time - at least not for as long as the Russians could.

[Robinho]

Ah so that's the reason why we lost manufacturing? Why don't you tell your economist friends, I'm sure they don't know that

That's the reason the trade balance is so woeful (and inevitably why manufacturing has been diminished).

It is analogous to a person thinking he had won the pools so he quit working and started living the high life. The problem is he hadn't won the pools, he'd just been given the impression he had by el gov, and now he's just a talentless indulgent slob who can't sell his labour because his skills have been denuded and has a large deficit between his earnings and his spending because he's used to living like a king.

It's actual very simple really, even a simpleton like you should get it.

[sasguru]

That's the reason the trade balance is so woeful (and inevitably why manufacturing has been diminished).

It is analogous to a person thinking he had won the pools so he quit working and started living the high life. The problem is he hadn't won the pools, he'd just been given the impression he had by el gov, and now he's just a talentless indulgent slob who can't sell his labour because his skill have been denuded and has a large deficit between his earnings and his spending because he's used to living like a king.

It's actual very simple really, even a simpleton like you should get it.

Right I can see your jelly like mind is wobbling all over the place and losing focus again.
You really should have got an education although I doubt you'd get the A-levels to go anywhere decent.
So I'll make it simple since you're such a prize, rock-headed, one-dimensional, dumbkopf simpleton.

Germany which over the last 2 decades has had more generous benefits by far than the UK (i.e. public sector until very recently has been larger), spends far more public money on its infrastructure, subsidises firms to keep on staff in the bad times, has far more red tape, rules and regs than the UK (try starting a LTD there) is far more successful and far richer than the UK.
I don't think anyone has ever said that the Germans are laissez faire.
Geddit, tulip for brains?
As some famous chap once said, when the data conflicts with my beliefs I change my beliefs.
What do you do sir?

[EternalOptimist]

From history books - you should try it some time. It was common for the Russian infantry to have one gun between two. Sometimes some soldider did not even have that.



Perhaps you should have tried, you might have learned something.


The Russians were excellently equipped? Their tanks were superior to the German Panzers - in 1941? Could you please provide sources for this?



Where do you place 'the front door'?

The Germans were rushing to Moscow but could not quite get there before winter, although they got within about 25 miles ISTR.

The Russian army was better equiped than the German army in terms of winter survival, including ski units etc. The sieges of Lenningrad and Moscow cost Germany dearly as the Russians simply had number to throw forward and politcal officers who shot anyone who retreated, the Germans could not match that loss rate and fight the cold at the same time - at least not for as long as the Russians could.

There is absolutely no evidence that any soldiers were sent into battle without a weapon.

The Russian medium tank in 1941 was the t34/76 which had between 50-60 mm of front armour.
The axis medium tank was the pzIV 75mm. which had a front armour of 70-80 mm.

The t34 armour had a massive advantage, it was sloped. Ther Germans thought this made it twice as hard to penetrate. Their response was to copy and improve the t34 in 1943, they called it the Panther.

In 1941, the germans had about 400 of the pz IV, with about double the number of lighter tanks
The Russians had about 1,500 T34/76 plus nearly a hundred heavy tanks on the western front

The Soviets also had a massive airforce.

[Robinho]

Right I can see your jelly like mind is wobbling all over the place and losing focus again.
You really should have got an education although I doubt you'd get the A-levels to go anywhere decent.
So I'll make it simple since you're such a prize, rock-headed, one-dimensional, dumbkopf simpleton.

Germany which over the last 2 decades has had more generous benefits by far than the UK (i.e. public sector until very recently has been larger), spends far more public money on its infrastructure, subsidises firms to keep on staff in the bad times, has far more red tape, rules and regs than the UK (try starting a LTD there) is far more successful and far richer than the UK.
I don't think anyone has ever said that the Germans are laissez faire.
Geddit, tulip for brains?
As some famous chap once said, when the data conflicts with my beliefs I change my beliefs.
What do you do sir?

I'm not taking about Germany, i'm talking about the UK.

KUATB

[EternalOptimist]

Quite.

Teutonic bastards.

Making stuff people want to buy.

A recent book I read (T Force) implied that one advantage the Germans had was all the outdated machinery was pinched by the Allies after the last global unpleasantness, so they had to re-equip with up to date machine tools.

The UK, by contrast, soldiered on with kit that had been designed when Victoria was a girl.

Go figure.

true. plus we paid for all the new gear as well
well the yanks did anyway. The Marshall plan