The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic

[ArtKramr]

Take the thousands of tactical missions flown against targets behind the
Normandy beaches to deny the Germans access cutting of re-enforcements.
Bridges, railines, marshalling yards. crossroads, ordnance depots, choke
points, ammo dumps, fuel dnmps, gasometer farms all destroyed contributing to
the success of the D Day landings without which victory would have been
impossible. The Martin Marauder B-26's played a vital role in this effort with
their extremely accurate low level bombing and highly trained crews working in
very tight precision formations..





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Bob Coe]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Take the thousands of tactical missions flown against targets behind the
> Normandy beaches to deny the Germans access cutting of re-enforcements.
> Bridges, railines, marshalling yards. crossroads, ordnance depots, choke
> points, ammo dumps, fuel dnmps, gasometer farms all destroyed contributing to
> the success of the D Day landings without which victory would have been
> impossible. The Martin Marauder B-26's played a vital role in this effort with
> their extremely accurate low level bombing and highly trained crews working in
> very tight precision formations..

It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.

[BUFDRVR]

Bob Coe wrote:

>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
>

Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources and
men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not make the
Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day, the
POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Coe wrote:
>
> >It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
> >
>
> Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
> men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make the
> Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day,
the
> POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.

Yeah, but they did NOT have plenty of fighters stationed forward to use that
fuel to deal with the invasion force. They had retained the bulk of their
fighter force to protect against the strategic onslaught against Germany,
and IIRC by the summer of 1944 they were already suffering the strategic
campaign's attrition effects in terms of training of replacement pilots to
take the place of those they had lost, a large part of which were lost
defending against the 8th AF and RAF BC.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Bob Coe wrote:
>
>>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
>>
>
>Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources and
>men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not make
>the
>Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day,
>the
>POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They had
plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and rail
lines and took out the bridges.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Bob Coe wrote:
> >
> >>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
> >>
> >
> >Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
> >men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make
> >the
> >Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
D-Day,
> >the
> >POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
> >
>
> But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
had
> plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
rail
> lines and took out the bridges.
>

The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
authorisation.

Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
army had to fight them around Caen while the
US army broke out to the south and west.

The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
them getting there.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/2/2004 1:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>> >Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Bob Coe wrote:
>> >
>> >>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
>and
>> >men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
>make
>> >the
>> >Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
>D-Day,
>> >the
>> >POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
>> >
>> >
>> >BUFDRVR
>> >
>>
>> But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
>had
>> plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
>rail
>> lines and took out the bridges.
>>
>
>The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
>wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
>were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
>high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
>authorisation.
>
>Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
>army had to fight them around Caen while the
>US army broke out to the south and west.
>
>The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
>them getting there.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they couldn't ge
very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines. Also
free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
sight. You should have been there.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/2/2004 1:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >> >Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >Bob Coe wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off
resources
> >and
> >> >men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
> >make
> >> >the
> >> >Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
> >D-Day,
> >> >the
> >> >POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >BUFDRVR
> >> >
> >>
> >> But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
> >had
> >> plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads
and
> >rail
> >> lines and took out the bridges.
> >>
> >
> >The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
> >wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
> >were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
> >high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
> >authorisation.
> >
> >Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
> >army had to fight them around Caen while the
> >US army broke out to the south and west.
> >
> >The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
> >them getting there.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
> >
> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
couldn't ge
> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines.
Also
> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
> sight. You should have been there.

You continue to make up history, I see. Yes, they *did* get "pretty
far"--reread your Normandy history (oh, that's right, you are allergic to
reading anything about that campaign...); you missed Keith's pointing out
the fighting around Caen? Or are you going to tell us those panzers running
around that area were figments of the troops' imagination?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[George Z. Bush]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>> >Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Bob Coe wrote:
>> >
>> >>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
> and
>> >men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
> make
>> >the
>> >Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
> D-Day,
>> >the
>> >POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
>> >
>> >
>> >BUFDRVR
>> >
>>
>> But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
> had
>> plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
> rail
>> lines and took out the bridges.
>>
>
> The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
> wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
> were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
> high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
> authorisation.
>
> Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
> army had to fight them around Caen while the
> US army broke out to the south and west.
>
> The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
> them getting there.
>
> Keith

Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one person,
group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than their own
relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright silly
about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the MTO
hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer troops
might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 9/2/2004 6:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>>> >Date: 9/1/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >Bob Coe wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
>> and
>>> >men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
>> make
>>> >the
>>> >Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of
>> D-Day,
>>> >the
>>> >POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >BUFDRVR
>>> >
>>>
>>> But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They
>> had
>>> plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
>> rail
>>> lines and took out the bridges.
>>>
>>
>> The main reason they couldnt move it forward is der Fuhrer
>> wouldnt let them. On the morning of 6th June the Wehrmacht
>> were desperate to move the armour to Normandy but the
>> high command wouldnt release them without Hitler's
>> authorisation.
>>
>> Those panzers DID get to Normandy and the British
>> army had to fight them around Caen while the
>> US army broke out to the south and west.
>>
>> The bombing helped delay them and inflicted losses but it didnt stop
>> them getting there.
>>
>> Keith
>
>Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one person,
>group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than their
>own
>relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright
>silly
>about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the
>MTO
>hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
>troops
>might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.
>
>George Z.
>

Then may I modestly say that we did the best we could with what we had and
luckily it all worked out fine. Thanks for your efforts in the MTO.





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[David Lentz]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Coe wrote:
>
> >It took years of strategic bombing to even have a Normandy.
> >
>
> Yes and no. Yes, the Strategic Bombing campaign did syphon off resources
and
> men that would have been manning positions at Normandy, but it did not
make the
> Germans short of any equipment or resources. Within a few months of D-Day,
the
> POL shortages would begin, but on D-Day the Germans had plenty of POL.

The war in Europe was largely fought along the Russian front. The strategic
air campaign supported the Allied policy of keeping the Soviets in the war.
I think Roosevelt's biggest fear wa that the Soviet would make another
sepeate peace with Germany. It was a fear of Eisenhower.

I think it safe to say that the strategic air campaign shortened the war,
but I do t think the war could have been won without it.

David


David

[Keith Willshaw]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one
person,
> group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than
their own
> relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright
silly
> about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in
the MTO
> hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
troops
> might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion
efforts.
>

Except that we'd have had all those US, British and Canadian
troops that were tried down in Italy available for the campaign

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Chris Mark]

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the MTO
>hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
>troops
>might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.

Not to mention on the Russian front. Operation Torch forced the Luftwaffe to
send 320 Ju 52s to the Med in November, 1942, just at the time the Soviets
mounted their counter-attack at Stalingrad and the Nazis tried to resupply
their troops their by air. Torch also forced the Germans to end their air
attacks on the Murmansk convoys and transfer anti-shipping and fighter units to
the Med. In the six months after Torch, the Germans lost more than 2,400
aircraft in the MTO fighting, including almost two-thirds of all their fighters
and bombers available as of Oct., 1942. When the Germans were driven from
Africa, among other things, they abandoned their aircraft maintenance and
repair equipment, tons of spare parts, and most of their ground crews.
The Germans rushed reinforcements to defend Italy, stripping other theaters.
Then came the assault on Sicily and Husky. In July 1943 alone, the Luftwaffe
lost more than 700 aircraft in the Sicilian fighting.
Just considering this period, and only the Luftwaffe, imagine if the forces
diverted to the Med, even just those lost there, had been available on the
Eastern Front.
Arguing about which theater was more important during the war is like arguing
which of your organs is more impartant. One says the heart is most important,
another the lungs, yet another the liver. Good arguments can be made in each
case, but remove any one of them and the other two are finished as well.


Chris Mark

[Keith Willshaw]

"David Lentz" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> The war in Europe was largely fought along the Russian front.

True to a point up until D-Day but from that point onwards
the germans had to pull more and more troops from Russia to shore
up the Western front. The Nazis knew that once the Ruhr fell
it was all over and the western allies were a much more urgent
threat in late 1944.

By November 1944 there were more German troops committed
in the west than the east

> The strategic
> air campaign supported the Allied policy of keeping the Soviets in the
war.

It also diverted immense amounts of german air power and critically
weakened the German air force both by destroying large numbers
of aircraft and pilots and destroying their fuel supply.

> I think Roosevelt's biggest fear wa that the Soviet would make another
> sepeate peace with Germany. It was a fear of Eisenhower.
>

That was scarcely a likely outcome after the battle of Stalingrad
The Russians were themselves terrified that the AngloAmericans
would do the same. The Germans saw the western allies as
opponents but the Russians were a racial enemy. They
fought it not for territory but to make the Slav's extinct.
The Russians understood that.

> I think it safe to say that the strategic air campaign shortened the war,
> but I do t think the war could have been won without it.

Perhaps but at much higher cost.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George Z. Bush]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> Half-heartedly following this exchange, it occurs to me that no one
> person,
>> group, or even army can rightfully take credit for anything other than
> their own
>> relatively tiny part in the overall picture. If you want to get downright
> silly
>> about it, nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in
> the MTO
>> hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
> troops
>> might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion
> efforts.
>>
>
> Except that we'd have had all those US, British and Canadian
> troops that were tried down in Italy available for the campaign
>
> Keith

Spoilsport! (^-^)))

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Chris Mark wrote:
>> From: "George Z. Bush"
>
>> nothing that happened in the ETO would have happened if we in the MTO
>> hadn't had Kesselring and his troops tied up in Italy. Those extra Heer
>> troops
>> might have had a decisive influence on the outcome of our invasion efforts.
>
> Not to mention on the Russian front. Operation Torch forced the Luftwaffe to
> send 320 Ju 52s to the Med in November, 1942, just at the time the Soviets
> mounted their counter-attack at Stalingrad and the Nazis tried to resupply
> their troops their by air. Torch also forced the Germans to end their air
> attacks on the Murmansk convoys and transfer anti-shipping and fighter units
> to the Med. In the six months after Torch, the Germans lost more than 2,400
> aircraft in the MTO fighting, including almost two-thirds of all their
> fighters and bombers available as of Oct., 1942. When the Germans were
> driven from Africa, among other things, they abandoned their aircraft
> maintenance and repair equipment, tons of spare parts, and most of their
> ground crews.
> The Germans rushed reinforcements to defend Italy, stripping other theaters.
> Then came the assault on Sicily and Husky. In July 1943 alone, the Luftwaffe
> lost more than 700 aircraft in the Sicilian fighting.
> Just considering this period, and only the Luftwaffe, imagine if the forces
> diverted to the Med, even just those lost there, had been available on the
> Eastern Front.
> Arguing about which theater was more important during the war is like arguing
> which of your organs is more impartant. One says the heart is most important,
> another the lungs, yet another the liver. Good arguments can be made in each
> case, but remove any one of them and the other two are finished as well.
>
>
> Chris Mark

My point exactly, but hopefully stated with less verbiage. (^-^)))

George Z.

[BUFDRVR]

Brooks wrote:

>Yeah, but they did NOT have plenty of fighters stationed forward to use that
>fuel to deal with the invasion force. They had retained the bulk of their
>fighter force to protect against the strategic onslaught against Germany,

Absolutely, I used ground air defense assets as an example of syphoned
resources, but fighters were just as big a factor.

>and IIRC by the summer of 1944 they were already suffering the strategic
>campaign's attrition effects in terms of training of replacement pilots to
>take the place of those they had lost, a large part of which were lost
>defending against the 8th AF and RAF BC.

Absolutely.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

>But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They had
>plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and rail
>lines and took out the bridges.
>

True, and Ira Eaker, Jimmy Doolittle and other prominent Army Air Force leaders
undertook the mission with great protests and completely under duress from
Eisenhower.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 9/2/2004 12:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>>But it was tactical bmbing that cut the Germans off from Normandy. They had
>>plenty, they just couldn't move it forward as we sliced up the roads and
>rail
>>lines and took out the bridges.
>>
>
>True, and Ira Eaker, Jimmy Doolittle and other prominent Army Air Force
>leaders
>undertook the mission with great protests and completely under duress from
>Eisenhower.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>

Geeez. And they never asked me whether I wanted to go or not. (sheeesh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Brooks wrote:
>
> >Yeah, but they did NOT have plenty of fighters stationed forward to use
that
> >fuel to deal with the invasion force. They had retained the bulk of their
> >fighter force to protect against the strategic onslaught against Germany,
>
> Absolutely, I used ground air defense assets as an example of syphoned
> resources, but fighters were just as big a factor.

IIRC, their Wehrmacht units of 1944 *were* understrength in terms of both
equipment and manpower--they had been forced to cut the number of sub-units
in divisions, Panzer and Panzer-Grenadier divisions did not have near the
number of tanks they had in previous years, etc. Given that the German
government had been forced to increase production of anti-aircraft armament
(and was already resource constrained), and assign many more men to work in
AAA units, by '44, I'd posit that the strategic offensive *did* have a
definite effect in terms of reducing the available manpower and equipment
resources for their ground forces as well.

Brooks

>
> >and IIRC by the summer of 1944 they were already suffering the strategic
> >campaign's attrition effects in terms of training of replacement pilots
to
> >take the place of those they had lost, a large part of which were lost
> >defending against the 8th AF and RAF BC.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...

> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
couldn't ge
> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines.
Also
> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
> sight. You should have been there.
>
>

My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.

Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
war, his battallion lost half its men during that
campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.

The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/2/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
>couldn't ge
>> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail lines.
>Also
>> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on the
>> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a beautiful
>> sight. You should have been there.
>>
>>
>
>My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
>The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
>panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
>divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
>the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
>reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.
>
>Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
>Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
>Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
>war, his battallion lost half its men during that
>campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
>fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.
>
>The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
>in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
>bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.
>
>Keith
>

There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army. Didn't you
read about them? And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
faced a lot more than he did. Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
reading your books.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/2/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
> >couldn't ge
> >> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail
lines.
> >Also
> >> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on
the
> >> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a
beautiful
> >> sight. You should have been there.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
> >The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
> >panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
> >divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
> >the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
> >reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.
> >
> >Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
> >Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
> >Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
> >war, his battallion lost half its men during that
> >campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
> >fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.
> >
> >The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
> >in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
> >bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army. Didn't
you
> read about them?

I just wrote about then

> And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
> faced a lot more than he did.

He faced 7 of the 8

> Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
> reading your books.
>

Advice you might want to take yourself.

Start with
PANZERS IN NORMANDY
THEN AND NOW
Eric Lefèvre

http://www.afterthebattle.com/panz.html

Panzer Regiments involved

HEER
Panzer Lehr Regiment (Panzer Lehr Division)
Panzer Regiment 3 (2. Panzer Division)
Panzer Regiment 16 (116. Panzer Division)
Panzer Regiment 22 (21. Panzer Division)
Panzer Regiment 33 (9. Panzer Division)
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503
Miscellaneous Army Panzer Units
Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654
Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100
Panzer Abteilung 206

WAFFEN-SS
SS-Panzer Regiment 1 (1. SS-Panzer Division)
SS-Panzer Regiment 2 (2. SS-Panzer Division)
SS-Panzer Regiment 9 (9. SS-Panzer Division)
SS-Panzer Regiment 10 (10. SS-Panzer Division)
SS-Panzer Regiment 12 (12. SS-Panzer Division)
SS-Panzer Abteilung 17 (17. SS-Panzer Grenadier Division)
Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101
Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/2/2004 3:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >Date: 9/2/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
>> >couldn't ge
>> >> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail
>lines.
>> >Also
>> >> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on
>the
>> >> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a
>beautiful
>> >> sight. You should have been there.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
>> >The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
>> >panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
>> >divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
>> >the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
>> >reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.
>> >
>> >Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
>> >Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
>> >Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
>> >war, his battallion lost half its men during that
>> >campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
>> >fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.
>> >
>> >The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
>> >in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
>> >bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>>
>> There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army. Didn't
>you
>> read about them?
>
>I just wrote about then
>
>> And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
>> faced a lot more than he did.
>
>He faced 7 of the 8
>
>> Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
>> reading your books.
>>
>
>Advice you might want to take yourself.
>
>Start with
>PANZERS IN NORMANDY
>THEN AND NOW
>Eric Lefèvre
>
>http://www.afterthebattle.com/panz.html
>
>Panzer Regiments involved
>
>HEER
>Panzer Lehr Regiment (Panzer Lehr Division)
>Panzer Regiment 3 (2. Panzer Division)
>Panzer Regiment 16 (116. Panzer Division)
>Panzer Regiment 22 (21. Panzer Division)
>Panzer Regiment 33 (9. Panzer Division)
>Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503
>Miscellaneous Army Panzer Units
>Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654
>Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100
>Panzer Abteilung 206
>
>WAFFEN-SS
>SS-Panzer Regiment 1 (1. SS-Panzer Division)
>SS-Panzer Regiment 2 (2. SS-Panzer Division)
>SS-Panzer Regiment 9 (9. SS-Panzer Division)
>SS-Panzer Regiment 10 (10. SS-Panzer Division)
>SS-Panzer Regiment 12 (12. SS-Panzer Division)
>SS-Panzer Abteilung 17 (17. SS-Panzer Grenadier Division)
>Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101
>Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102
>
>Keith


I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
>
> Arthur Kramer


Brilliant! Any smart ass comment to avoid adressing the issue.

Dave

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 9/2/2004 5:29 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>>Date: 9/2/2004 3:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>>> >Date: 9/2/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> >> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
>>> >couldn't ge
>>> >> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail
>>lines.
>>> >Also
>>> >> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on
>>the
>>> >> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a
>>beautiful
>>> >> sight. You should have been there.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
>>> >The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
>>> >panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
>>> >divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
>>> >the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
>>> >reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.
>>> >
>>> >Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
>>> >Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
>>> >Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
>>> >war, his battallion lost half its men during that
>>> >campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
>>> >fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.
>>> >
>>> >The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
>>> >in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
>>> >bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.
>>> >
>>> >Keith
>>> >
>>>
>>> There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army. Didn't
>>you
>>> read about them?
>>
>>I just wrote about then
>>
>>> And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
>>> faced a lot more than he did.
>>
>>He faced 7 of the 8
>>
>>> Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
>>> reading your books.
>>>
>>
>>Advice you might want to take yourself.
>>
>>Start with
>>PANZERS IN NORMANDY
>>THEN AND NOW
>>Eric Lefèvre
>>
>>http://www.afterthebattle.com/panz.html
>>
>>Panzer Regiments involved
>>
>>HEER
>>Panzer Lehr Regiment (Panzer Lehr Division)
>>Panzer Regiment 3 (2. Panzer Division)
>>Panzer Regiment 16 (116. Panzer Division)
>>Panzer Regiment 22 (21. Panzer Division)
>>Panzer Regiment 33 (9. Panzer Division)
>>Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503
>>Miscellaneous Army Panzer Units
>>Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654
>>Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100
>>Panzer Abteilung 206
>>
>>WAFFEN-SS
>>SS-Panzer Regiment 1 (1. SS-Panzer Division)
>>SS-Panzer Regiment 2 (2. SS-Panzer Division)
>>SS-Panzer Regiment 9 (9. SS-Panzer Division)
>>SS-Panzer Regiment 10 (10. SS-Panzer Division)
>>SS-Panzer Regiment 12 (12. SS-Panzer Division)
>>SS-Panzer Abteilung 17 (17. SS-Panzer Grenadier Division)
>>Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101
>>Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany

Art, when did he say they did? He only identified the Nazi armour involved.
Your combat experience doesn't trump mine nor does it make you an expert on
war, any war. It only makes you an expert on YOU itty, bitty piece of a very
big war.

Why is that when YOU use second hand information it is okay, but when someone
else does it isn't?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/2/2004 3:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >Date: 9/2/2004 1:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >> But once they got the Fuhrer's authorization to move forward they
> >> >couldn't ge
> >> >> very far due to the destruction we imposed on the bridges and rail
> >lines.
> >> >Also
> >> >> free ranging P-47's attacked anything and everything thet moved on
> >the
> >> >> ground. It was tactical operations at their best. It was all a
> >beautiful
> >> >> sight. You should have been there.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >My father was there. The fighting around Caen was UGLY.
> >> >The British and Canadian forces were engaged with those
> >> >panzers you claim didnt get there. 7 of the 8 Panzer
> >> >divisions the Germans had in Northern France were in
> >> >the area. 21st Panzer were already there and the first
> >> >reinforcements, 12th SS Panzer arrived on the 8th June.
> >> >
> >> >Fighting Tigers and Panthers when you have
> >> >Sherman's and Churchill's isnt fun. Thats where 50th
> >> >Infantry Division took its heaviest casualties of the
> >> >war, his battallion lost half its men during that
> >> >campaign. The 51st Highland division found itself
> >> >fighting the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions.
> >> >
> >> >The 2nd Canadian Division lost almost 3000 men
> >> >in just 6 days. Those panzers got there, the
> >> >bombing slowed but did NOT stop them.
> >> >
> >> >Keith
> >> >
> >>
> >> There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army. Didn't
> >you
> >> read about them?
> >
> >I just wrote about then
> >
> >> And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
> >> faced a lot more than he did.
> >
> >He faced 7 of the 8
> >
> >> Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
> >> reading your books.
> >>
> >
> >Advice you might want to take yourself.
> >
> >Start with
> >PANZERS IN NORMANDY
> >THEN AND NOW
> >Eric Lefèvre
> >
> >http://www.afterthebattle.com/panz.html
> >
> >Panzer Regiments involved
> >
> >HEER
> >Panzer Lehr Regiment (Panzer Lehr Division)
> >Panzer Regiment 3 (2. Panzer Division)
> >Panzer Regiment 16 (116. Panzer Division)
> >Panzer Regiment 22 (21. Panzer Division)
> >Panzer Regiment 33 (9. Panzer Division)
> >Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503
> >Miscellaneous Army Panzer Units
> >Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 654
> >Panzer Ersatz und Ausbildungs Abteilung 100
> >Panzer Abteilung 206
> >
> >WAFFEN-SS
> >SS-Panzer Regiment 1 (1. SS-Panzer Division)
> >SS-Panzer Regiment 2 (2. SS-Panzer Division)
> >SS-Panzer Regiment 9 (9. SS-Panzer Division)
> >SS-Panzer Regiment 10 (10. SS-Panzer Division)
> >SS-Panzer Regiment 12 (12. SS-Panzer Division)
> >SS-Panzer Abteilung 17 (17. SS-Panzer Grenadier Division)
> >Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101
> >Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102
> >
> >Keith
>
>
> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.

Maybe not, but then again, they *do* tell us (with much more authority than
you can muster) that without a doubt you have again been proven to be full
of excrement (i.e., "wrong", since you may find that description easier to
understand, given that you apparently missed the fact that Keith covered the
employment of "more than one" Pz Div in his earlier response to you).

Brooks
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic

>
>
> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
>

Of course they dont.

They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
average soldier fighting there at the time.

Keith

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 02 Sep 2004 20:27:25 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army.

And more than one in Normandy, as Keith already stated, but somehow
troops in the British sector of the beachhead ended up having to fight
the only panzer division within reach of the beaches on D-Day despite
your efforts. Try reading his post before responding next time.

>Didn't you
>read about them?

You're not disputing with Keith, you're disputing the evidence of his
father, who actually fought on the ground in Normandy against the
divisions in question. When it comes down to fighting the panzers on
the ground in Normandy, Keith's old man was there, and you're the
wannabe reading about it. I really shouldn't respond to your
trolling, but this specific example exposes everything that I despise
about the moral hypocrisy you display online.

>And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
>faced a lot more than he did. Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back to
>reading your books.

Do you realise how bad this kind of aggressively infantile chauvanism
makes you look?

Gavin Bailey

--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>
>>
>>
>> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
>>
>
>Of course they dont.
>
>They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
>Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
>average soldier fighting there at the time.
>
>Keith
>

Those of us who were there know nothing. Those who weren't there know it all.
Does that include your dad?




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
> >>
> >
> >Of course they dont.
> >
> >They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
> >Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
> >average soldier fighting there at the time.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> Those of us who were there know nothing. Those who weren't there know it
all.
> Does that include your dad?

His dad *was* there, and you were NOT. Don't act as if the intel guys were
giving you detailed premission briefs that included the enemy groundforce
ORBAT and number of panzer divisions committed to the fight--they were not,
you know it, and we know it. Your "firsthand" account is based upon what
little you saw while streaking over the battlefield at 10K plus
altitude--his father was seeing it up-close-and-personal (and which agrees
with the historical accounts in those books you repeatedly ridicule). But
please, keep on flapping your trap--you are just reinforcing your
(increasingly tarnished) reputation with every idiotic utterance you make.

Brooks
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
> >>
> >
> >Of course they dont.
> >
> >They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
> >Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
> >average soldier fighting there at the time.
> >
> >Keith
> >
>
> Those of us who were there know nothing.

You know about what you did and saw as well
as anything you read about.

> Those who weren't there know it all.

I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.

> Does that include your dad?

He was aware of the limits of his knowledge

As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
he had of strategy is what his orders were.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 9/3/2004 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Of course they dont.
>> >
>> >They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
>> >Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
>> >average soldier fighting there at the time.
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>>
>> Those of us who were there know nothing.
>
>You know about what you did and saw as well
>as anything you read about.
>
>> Those who weren't there know it all.
>
>I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.
>
>> Does that include your dad?
>
>He was aware of the limits of his knowledge
>
>As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
>platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
>but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
>he had of strategy is what his orders were.
>
>Keith
>
>

Nothing special there. That was all of us.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: Presidente Alcazar
>Date: 9/2/2004 11:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 02 Sep 2004 20:27:25 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>There was more than just one Panzer division in the German army.
>
>And more than one in Normandy, as Keith already stated, but somehow
>troops in the British sector of the beachhead ended up having to fight
>the only panzer division within reach of the beaches on D-Day despite
>your efforts. Try reading his post before responding next time.
>
>>Didn't you
>>read about them?
>
>You're not disputing with Keith, you're disputing the evidence of his
>father, who actually fought on the ground in Normandy against the
>divisions in question. When it comes down to fighting the panzers on
>the ground in Normandy, Keith's old man was there, and you're the
>wannabe reading about it. I really shouldn't respond to your
>trolling, but this specific example exposes everything that I despise
>about the moral hypocrisy you display online.
>
>>And had we not stopped what we did, your father would have
>>faced a lot more than he did. Now be a nice boy, say thank you, and go back
>to
>>reading your books.
>
>Do you realise how bad this kind of aggressively infantile chauvanism
>makes you look?
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

I want to thank you for reading every message I post and replying promptly
indicating you have hung on every word I have written. It makes me feel my
contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >Date: 9/3/2004 6:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >> >Date: 9/2/2004 11:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sure those books will tell me what war was "REALLY" like.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Of course they dont.
> >> >
> >> >They do however tell me what 'REALLY' happened.
> >> >Thats something that wasnt readily apparent to the
> >> >average soldier fighting there at the time.
> >> >
> >> >Keith
> >> >
> >>
> >> Those of us who were there know nothing.
> >
> >You know about what you did and saw as well
> >as anything you read about.
> >
> >> Those who weren't there know it all.
> >
> >I said no such thing , its plainly ridiculous.
> >
> >> Does that include your dad?
> >
> >He was aware of the limits of his knowledge
> >
> >As a senior NCO he knew all about what his
> >platoon did, quite a lot about battalion level ops
> >but he wasnt briefed by Ike and the only knowledge
> >he had of strategy is what his orders were.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >
>
> Nothing special there. That was all of us.

Then why do you continue to act as if you were a first-hand participant in
the ground war and know more than the various published histories of that
action?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[BUFDRVR]

ArtKramr wrote:

> It makes me feel my
>contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.

They're neither. People respond to you to set straight anyone who may think
you're an authority on anything beyond your single B-26 between 1943 and 1945.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 03 Sep 2004 17:32:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I want to thank you for reading every message I post

I don't. I do however read Keith's posts and their followups on the
basis that he can contribute to an interesting and relevant
discussion, and also slap trolls around for general entertainment.

>and replying promptly

I don't, as you will have noticed since you evaded responding to my
question about your personal, first-hand experience of Geoffrey
Chaucer and simultaneously demonstrated your personal intellectual
cowardice. It's strange but also rather pathetic that you had the
guts to face the risks of air combat in WW2 but lack the moral courage
to post honestly to usenet and confront your own contradictions.

>indicating you have hung on every word I have written.

And again, I don't. You seem to be managing a higher level of
followups to my posts than I ever managed with yours. Still, feel
free to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable. That would
certainly be in character.

>It makes me feel my
>contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.

And I'm sure the lurkers support you to the last bullet. It's a shame
your contributions have to rely so extensively on childish,
competitive bluster and the denigration of people who served in WW2.
If you could deal with that, and I assume you have the capacity to do
so, I'm sure your posts would be a lot more appreciated. As it is, I
suppose you provide a salutary example to later generations that a man
can perform good service in WW2 and yet still fail to be a big enough
man to acknowledge the contributions of others more than half a
century later.

You diminish yourself by your posting behaviour.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: Presidente Alcazar
>Date: 9/4/2004 2:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 03 Sep 2004 17:32:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>I want to thank you for reading every message I post
>
>I don't. I do however read Keith's posts and their followups on the
>basis that he can contribute to an interesting and relevant
>discussion, and also slap trolls around for general entertainment.
>
>>and replying promptly
>
>I don't, as you will have noticed since you evaded responding to my
>question about your personal, first-hand experience of Geoffrey
>Chaucer and simultaneously demonstrated your personal intellectual
>cowardice. It's strange but also rather pathetic that you had the
>guts to face the risks of air combat in WW2 but lack the moral courage
>to post honestly to usenet and confront your own contradictions.
>
>>indicating you have hung on every word I have written.
>
>And again, I don't. You seem to be managing a higher level of
>followups to my posts than I ever managed with yours. Still, feel
>free to believe whatever makes you feel more comfortable. That would
>certainly be in character.
>
>>It makes me feel my
>>contributions to this NG are worthwhile and appreciated.
>
>And I'm sure the lurkers support you to the last bullet. It's a shame
>your contributions have to rely so extensively on childish,
>competitive bluster and the denigration of people who served in WW2.
>If you could deal with that, and I assume you have the capacity to do
>so, I'm sure your posts would be a lot more appreciated. As it is, I
>suppose you provide a salutary example to later generations that a man
>can perform good service in WW2 and yet still fail to be a big enough
>man to acknowledge the contributions of others more than half a
>century later.
>
>You diminish yourself by your posting behaviour.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>
>--
>
>Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
>Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
>than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En
>

Then don't read my posts. No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
says it all


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Presidente Alcazar]

On 04 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Then don't read my posts.

Indeed, that's the best response to a troll.

> No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
>says it all

I read this one on the off-chance there might be an answer to the
question I posed a year ago and reiterated just now: what your
personal experience of Geoffrey Chaucer was. I admit the odds were
slight that you would manage a response to that and the other
contradictions, but I thought I ought to give you the chance. The
safe money was always on you running away from them as per usual,
however.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The greatest missions were tactical, not strategic
>From: Presidente Alcazar
>Date: 9/4/2004 7:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 04 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>Then don't read my posts.
>
>Indeed, that's the best response to a troll.
>
>> No one is makng you read them but you do anyway.That
>>says it all
>
>I read this one on the off-chance there might be an answer to the
>question I posed a year ago and reiterated just now: what your
>personal experience of Geoffrey Chaucer was. I admit the odds were
>slight that you would manage a response to that and the other
>contradictions, but I thought I ought to give you the chance. The
>safe money was always on you running away from them as per usual,
>however.
>
>Gavin Bailey
>

I see you are still reading my posts. Have you no self control?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer