US and Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan...- threadbanned users in OP

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117815658#Comment_117815658

I'd struggle to lay blame at anyone's feet in the aftermath of a devastating suicide bombing like that. Senses I'd say in disarray and levels of awareness all over the place. It's hard charge to level.

NIMAN

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117815658#Comment_117815658

Just seen that clip on the BBC site, jesus that is so sad.

The look in those childrens eyes. What humans do to each other.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117816176#Comment_117816176

I know, it's heart breaking , I want to adopt them all, and take them to Disney land EVERYDAY !!

There is no worse feeling than feeling powerless to help someone!

cj maxx

Boris Johnstons statement is humiliating for the West. " we kept the Taliban quiet for 20 years"

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117815658#Comment_117815658

So you think that it wasn't the high explosive bomb in a crowd of thousands?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117817745#Comment_117817745

You can't beat a side who have the backing of a majority.

America is warning of a specific credible threat over the next 24-36 hours

Almost guaranteed when they use that phrasing ☹️

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818116#Comment_117818116

Dude how would I know, I only know it's a fact that the people there claim this. If there were gunmen, where are they? No one as of yet showed these bodies of these gun men, the shootout was after the bomb,so obviously these mysterious gunmen where not blown into a million pieces, some claim it was British firing on US, as there were soldiers down in the blast area, witnesses claim so many survived the blast, then were fired on by the British , killing afghans, and US soldiers, who were firing too in the confusion, who probably had their clothes ripped off in blast, but still survived and were armed, then killed by the British, as they looked like ragged clothed guys with weapons.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117815002#Comment_117815002

If only they'd let the Soviets prop up brutal left wing dictators, South America would have been in a much better place.

jmayo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117815082#Comment_117815082

Ehh have to comment on this.

The German tanks were not fit for purpose.

Oh yeah the Panther, the Tiger and King Tiger were brilliant pieces of engineers, they had way better armour, and the Tigers had the brilliant 88mm field gun mounted on it.

But like a lot of German weapons, the tanks were complicated designs, were expensive to produce needing lot of engineering and good materials, and thus were harder to maintain.

For instance the Panther that was developed to counter the Soviet T-34 took huge number of man hours to build and was hard to maintain in the field needing specialist engineers.

The T-34 on the other hand was fast production, cheap to produce and could be maintained by non specialists in the field.

The Soviets could knock out over a thousand a month in comparison to the Germans 100 odd a month for the Panther.

And in battle the superior Tigers and Panthers did not last that much longer in operation than a T-34 that excused all the extra costs, both in materials and man hours.

Yes the Allies, i.e. the US started producing better tanks, but seriously they had to do better than the likes of the Sherman.

The most shocking thing when you stand beside a Sherman is just how big it's profile really is.

Holy shyte they must have stood out like a massive target when facing Tigers.

The Soviets have always gone for simplicity in weapons design where possible in comparison first to Germans and then laterally the US.

Their AK47 is testament to that, it is not fancy, it is not accurate over long range like some Western assault rifles.

But that is not what you need when fighting in close quarters and when you don't have luxury of spending time molly coddling your weapon.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818693#Comment_117818693

Fit for purpose. The purpose originally was for the Blitzkrieg, and not to go toe-to-toe with the monstrosities of the WW1 generation of tanks. Maneuverable designs which were sometimes lacking in adequate armaments but still very suited to the warfare that the Wehrmacht had been designed to implement. Hitler and others placed the Wehrmacht and subsequently the tanks into situations that they weren't designed for. Later models took that into account but by that time, German industry was being bombed. But yes, they were over-designed and required too much skilled labor, the same problems the Japanese faced with many of their own designs.

The point remains that Soviet strategy was based on it's human wave strategy of massed infantry divisions, which was later joined with massed tank divisions, and massed artillery/rocket groups. Punch a brutal hole in the enemy lines, but with little consideration for the losses sustained by those Soviet troops.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818492#Comment_117818492

Ah, the simple comforting joys of moral relativism. I think it was Rudy Giuliani, or someone of his ilk anyway, who, upon being asked whether waterboarding was torture, replied "it depends who's doing it". As the poor wretches in Yemen are the latest to discover, state sponsored terrorism is deemed fine by many once it is their side carrying it out.

Dyr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818865#Comment_117818865

I'd choose self interest over self indulgent moral bandstanding anyway. The reason we grew up in a western democracy was the same US foreign policy that gave us Pinochet and his ilk

You would have been happier with left wing brutal dictatorships though eh? More Nicky Cseuacescaus and Kim Jong ils. That taste of moral smugness might not have the same flavour under communism

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117819195#Comment_117819195

Well, from the history books I read anyway, I don't recall it being a choice between the brutal fascist murderer Pinochet and the brutal fascist murderers Ceausescu or Kim. The choice, as i learned it, was between brutal fascist murderer Pinochet and democratically elected president Salvadore Allende. But, hey, I guess Ireland's democracy was under mortal peril in the 1970s because some socialists had been democratically elected in Chile, so I might have to have a rethink on that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818492#Comment_117818492

Yeah that's why South American countries like Honduras are so dangerous and corrupt, all those soviet companies based there and their interests requiring the instigation of coups

Kermit.de.frog

The reality is there will always be a superpower. We should be grateful it's the USA today. It could be China tomorrow and they are not in to the whole human rights gig.

America gets a lot of stuff wrong but those who moan will never say who they would prefer as a world super power instead.

It has to be someone...

China, Russia?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820245#Comment_117820245

People always bring up China's (terrible) human rights records yet are happy to hold the US up as a shining beacon of light. They gloss over the fact that the US has also committed (and continues to commit) some horrendous breaches of human rights, mai lai massacre, extraordinary renditions, torture, Guantanamo Bay to name but a few.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820434#Comment_117820434

You expect perfection when countries are always going to look after their own interests. No country is going to be perfect but I think it's a whole lot better having the US, for it's flaws, as the super power rather than others who, make no mistake, are dictatorships and have no truck with democracy or rights.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820600#Comment_117820600

I agree that other countries human rights records are bad, but you can't say the US has its "flaws", they will abuse human rights of others without a thought if it furthers their own agenda.

Again, I'm not defending Russia, China etc, I just don't see the US as a shining light for democracy and human rights while ignoring their terrible records on both.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818693#Comment_117818693

The German tanks were not fit for purpose.

Their purpose was to either support the infantry or eliminate enemy tanks. Both purposes they carried out very well in fact. In the earlier part of the war their infantry support was excellent. They were designed for the fast manoeuvre of combined arms and the Panzer I, II, III and IV handled that excellently. After 1941, German tank manufacture became more about having to deal with tanks of superior fire power and armour protection. Hence the likes of upgrading of the Panzer IV (originally a short barrelled infantry support vehicle) to a long barrelled tank to tank vehicle. Elsewhere, the infantry support tasks were handled by the Sturmartillerie, who also got wrangled into the tank destroyer role later on.

Oh yeah the Panther, the Tiger and King Tiger were brilliant pieces of engineers, they had way better armour, and the Tigers had the brilliant 88mm field gun mounted on it.

The best over all weapon on any German tank of the war was probably the 75mm L70. It's armour penetration was excellent and it was lighter than the Tiger II's L71 88mm weapon. It was also much cheaper and took less man hours/materials to produce. The Tiger I's L56 gun was outclassed by both weapons.

But the German workhorse of the war, the Panzer IV, was the backbone of the German Armoured forces. It's 75mm L48 was an excellent weapon too and she could hold her own until the end of the war. People get caught up with the big cats, but it was the PzKpfw IV that did the bulk of the work right up til the end of the war.

But like a lot of German weapons, the tanks were complicated designs, were expensive to produce needing lot of engineering and good materials, and thus were harder to maintain.

For instance the Panther that was developed to counter the Soviet T-34 took huge number of man hours to build and was hard to maintain in the field needing specialist engineers.

The T-34 on the other hand was fast production, cheap to produce and could be maintained by non specialists in the field.

The Soviets could knock out over a thousand a month in comparison to the Germans 100 odd a month for the Panther.

The common conception or misconception, depending on who you are talking to, is that German AFV's were over-engineered. And while there's a certain amount of truth to that, they had a pretty respectable time during the war. Their reputation of always breaking down is a bit of a myth and even the Tiger II's travel ability was decent for a tank of its size. They were able to negotiate through the Ardennes in 1944 which was not an easy task for an AFV. The likes of the Tiger I had excellent floatation on soft ground, even if was relatively slower on paved roads than her enemy counterparts. But she never really needed to be super fast. However, the main issue with German tanks in particular was their production time, due to the strict standards that were applied in German manufacturing. But was more of a problem of attitude rather than an inherent design problem. For example, whereas the Russians didn't care about spectacular weld seams, the German tanks were almost works of art in that regard. This is still reflected in the surviving vehicles today. During the war, Russian tanks could roll off the assembly line with poor manufacture, parts missing and a "good enough" attitude. German manufacture, on the other hand, was always held to a high watermark even at the end of the war.

With regards to field maintenance, all combatant nations had problems with maintaining vehicles in the field. There are numerous Russians who'll tell you the nightmares of field maintenance during WWII. Tanks, by their very nature, were a pain in the arse to run. However, the overriding German problem, however, was the fact that their main battle tanks were always in flux. For instance a Panzer III and IV are very different to a Panzer V and a Panzer VI was different again and German tank commanders constantly lamented the sheer amount of new tank designs that were on the table. They got over this by confining the heavy tanks to the Schwere Panzerabteilung where dedicated personnel were tasked with carrying out maintenance. But the biggest problem the Germans faced with regards maintenance was simply getting the heavy tanks off of the battlefield once they had been knocked out because they were so weighty. But even at that, the Germans still managed to keep a healthy level of tank maintenance up during the war.

With respect to the T-34, that was a design that had been in production since before the war and its chassis didn't really change all that much. Which went a long way to its relative ease of maintenance. But it was a very simple design that worked. There are examples of T-34's being pulled out of swamps and driving off 70+ years after they stopped. It's always been a bit of a puzzle as to why the Germans just never copied the T-34, warts and all. They certainly used a lot of them as Beutepanzers.

However, at the end of the day, what we have was more the approach by both nations that was the issue, not necessarily the designs themselves. Russia's attitude was build more it doesn't matter what they look like. Germany's was well we're always going to build less so let's build them so they'll last.

Either attitude has some merit. A tank built to last can survive more hits and do its job relatively longer. A tank rolling off the line that's barely held together won't be surviving for long on the battlefield. But it didn't matter because there were another three or four out there as well.

Either way, as it turns out, tanks generally don't last too long in either case. Few tanks of any nation lived to a ripe old age. But we have to bear in mind that this is a war were much was learnt about tank warfare from a previously unknown position.

Yes the Allies, i.e. the US started producing better tanks, but seriously they had to do better than the likes of the Sherman.

The most shocking thing when you stand beside a Sherman is just how big it's profile really is.

Holy shyte they must have stood out like a massive target when facing Tigers.

When talking about the Sherman, it really depends on what Sherman you're referencing. An early war "Tommie Cooker" or "Ronson" is not really comparable to an "Easy 8" or a "Firefly". But in terms of automotive abilities, the Sherman has one of the best records of the war and as an all rounder it was very far from being a slouch. Plus it's later war weaponry was also very good with the 76mm or 17 pounder being a very capable gun.

It's height was due to the drive shaft from the engine running through her hull. So she stood at around 9 and 9 and a half ft depending on the model. But she was around the same general height as a Panther or Tiger I. She looks tall because she's thinner when viewed head on. Either way, I don't think it played too much of a role against her during the war.

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/AishaTaIks/status/1432040956644184066

https://twitter.com/AishaTaIks/status/1432040956644184066

Imagine that on Prime Time , Miriam with a gun to her head.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117818752#Comment_117818752

The point remains that Soviet strategy was based on it's human wave strategy of massed infantry divisions, which was later joined with massed tank divisions, and massed artillery/rocket groups. Punch a brutal hole in the enemy lines, but with little consideration for the losses sustained by those Soviet troops.

The Russian "human wave" is a bit of a myth. While it did happen at certain times, it was largely out of desperation rather than a "strategy". There were times when sheer numbers where thrown against the Germans and her allies, but this occurred early in the war when the idea was simply to stop the enemy advance in any way possible and buy time. This also included press gangs of civilians in one or two large battles like Leningrad and Stalingrad.

However, the Soviets mostly used their troops like every other combatant nation and losses were felt keenly. So, wasteful "human wave" attacks were not the order of the day generally. In addition, from 1943 onwards, the Russians were using their own form of Blitzkrieg against the Germans very successfully where speed and combined forces attack were the tactics involved.

The "human wave" idea mainly comes from German observers, who would often just simply be outnumbered by the enemy. So it appeared that they were just throwing bodies at a position, when in fact it was simply an attack by superior numbers, which is what the Germans themselves would be doing if the roles were reversed. The thing is the Germans were usually outnumbered by their enemies in WWII, so the impression was wave after wave of enemy combatants.

But the Russians themselves could have that impression at times too. The schwerpunkt of a Blitzkrieg attack would make the average Russian soldier think that the entire Wehrmacht was coming straight at him.

Montage of Feck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117817745#Comment_117817745

They never learn do they?

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820738#Comment_117820738

I'm sure there's loads on here that would love to see just that. 😆

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820600#Comment_117820600

US for all it's flaws is a Democracy.. hmm.. a two party system where only the rich ever reach any heights of power or influence. The most powerful man in the world is never from anything less than a rich/wealthy background, and you're fooling yourself if you consider the US to be a good example of democracy with election fraud, manipulation of voter districts, etc. We expect that kind of behavior from Latin America, but not the US... and yet, it's glossed over.

I'd prefer having the US as the worlds main superpower than either Russia or China... but that preference is fading with time. The US is no longer what it once was. Sept 11 changed everything. The faking of evidence and the lies told to instigate the invasion of Iraq changed everything.. another thing people love to gloss over. The use of Guantanamo bay, black sites, NSA tapping of European governments... helped change things further. Hell, Homeland security and the extent by which US departments can monitor and "manage" their own people is rather shocking when you dig into it.

As time goes by, the US is becoming less and less of what we might expect of a western democracy. I suspect many people are spending too much time holding on to their past safe perceptions of the US. It's easier that recognising that they act in their own interests, bully other nations, and are very selective when they want to enforce human rights or anything else that they're supposedly the defender of.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820821#Comment_117820821

Interesting because everything I've read suggests otherwise, as were conversations with people when I was in Russia years ago. Still.. I'm not going to argue it here.

jmayo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117820721#Comment_117820721

When I say not fit for purpose I kinda mean the purpose of keeping the Germans fighting for longer.

By the time the Panzer V Panthers came into production, rushed for the likes of Kursk, the Germans had nearly a couple of years experience fighting the T-34 versions.

The Germans should have learned something about need for mass producing lots of cheaper tanks.

Yes they learned about things like sloped armour, but didn't seem to learn about production.

They were cheaper to produce than Tiger I, but nowhere near like a T-34.

And yes in a battlefield (especially open) the Panther and most especially Tiger II could give a tank crew a superior platform, but the issue was there were never enough of them.

Granted tank crews were a problem for Germans as time went on.

I think tank development went forward in leaps and bounds, just like the development of primary infantry weapon, aircraft, etc changed greatly between start of war and end.

To me the Panzer IV was the equivalent of the Hurricane in Battle of Britain.

It did the dirty work and carried most of the fight, but lost out in terms of publicity to it's sexier more illustrious brethren.

Actually never thought about the narrowness of the Shermans. I have never seen them side by side in real life.

BTW if you think Russian/Soviet welding improved over time, check out some of the Belarus tractors. They look like they were welded by a first day apprentice.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117821385#Comment_117821385

Absolutely nothing was going to keep the Germans in the fight for longer. They were doomed, practically, from the beginning. The war aims of Germany were just far too lofty to achieve. The fact that they were able to do what they did militarily is quite remarkable.

With further regard to their tank production, as I said earlier, they assumed (quite correctly) that they were never, ever, going to be able to out produce the Russians with a medium machine equal to the T-34 in terms of production ease. So they opted for a tougher and harder to kill machine. Even if they had opted for an simpler machine, they would never had been able to compete. So, their logic was quite sound. But plenty of things conspired against them and once that decision was made, it was pretty much locked in. They couldn't change tack and we have to remember that tanks don't just appear out of nowhere. They take years of development. In the case of both the Panzer V and VI, the genesis was already there as a replacement for the Panzer III and IV. When the Germans made contact with the T-34 and KV-1 the need for a heavier tank became paramount. They could have scrapped all heavy panzer production and concentrated solely on Panzer IV instead. But this wouldn't have made any real difference to the outcome of the war and in the latter stages she was showing her age too, whereas the T-34 carried on for decades afterward. Plus the Panzer IV started out as an infantry support vehicle and was only ever really considered by some as a stop gap to a "real" tank vs tank machine, despite the fact that she gave sterling service throughout the war.

The problem for the Germans is that the war just lasted 5+ years. This may seem a long time, but it really isn't. Plus their decisions had a very real weight and time wasn't on their side. We can sit here 75 years later and say they should have done this or they should have done that. But the reality is they had to make a choice and stick to it. I think at the time, no matter what choice they made, they were damned either way.

Anyway, that's enough war yap for me in this thread.

Flinty997

Tiger was a tough nut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAx57MHH7k&ab_channel=MarkFeltonProductions

Flinty997

the T-34 carried on for decades afterward

That's also because so many where made and left over from the war. Where as German tanks were mostly destroyed.

Last combat with a T-34 was during the Bosnian War.

Last combat with German Panzers was Six Day War in 1967

Last combat with a Sherman was the 70's in South America.