But why didn´t they take the Bullet engine from India? Even cheaper, and at least 50% of the bozos going for this sort of thing would think its from Indiana.
- cruiz-euro
- cruiz-euro
Fischer MRX 650: Would you buy one?
Nope.
I ain't buyin' an "American" bike with a Hyosung Motor.
When I decide to buy American, it will be a CityX for me thanks.
I ain't buyin' an "American" bike with a Hyosung Motor.
When I decide to buy American, it will be a CityX for me thanks.
1 - 7 of 117 Posts
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Well whatever bad sides they had (and God knows they had some severe ones) they were unfortunately not incompetent.
- cruiz-euro
Well whatever bad sides they had (and God knows they had some severe ones) they were unfortunately not incompetent.
- cruiz-euro
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Wehrmacht was the more competent army.
They occupied almost whole of Europe, and would have got England as well had it not been for the channel. They were at the gates of Moscow and had a big chunk of North Africa. Bloody amazing feat.
Obviously they were stretched too far and couldn´t keep it up. When the D-day came, they had already had 2 million casualities. That´s like a big number. Still, in the western front they killed 2 for each one of their own dead. The gringos never got a breakthrough in Italy although the krauts were 1-10 underdogs.
- cruiz-euro
Wehrmacht was the more competent army.
They occupied almost whole of Europe, and would have got England as well had it not been for the channel. They were at the gates of Moscow and had a big chunk of North Africa. Bloody amazing feat.
Obviously they were stretched too far and couldn´t keep it up. When the D-day came, they had already had 2 million casualities. That´s like a big number. Still, in the western front they killed 2 for each one of their own dead. The gringos never got a breakthrough in Italy although the krauts were 1-10 underdogs.
- cruiz-euro
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.
Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.
There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.
To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.
- cruiz-euro
Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.
Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.
There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.
To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.
- cruiz-euro
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
They already are in our neighborhood, but they are different breed now. Like 180 degrees different. They are the most anti-militaristic people you can imagine. And for a reason.
- cruiz-euro
They already are in our neighborhood, but they are different breed now. Like 180 degrees different. They are the most anti-militaristic people you can imagine. And for a reason.
- cruiz-euro
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
You are getting this tragically wrong. It was only for one man, and one man alone that the English did not agree to peace. In the beginning British were doing very badly indeed, losing their planes and losing their merchant ships. GW himself commented (=admitted the possibility) that if they lose England they will fight from the colonies.
When Hess flied to Scotland offering peace observed one cabinet member: "Only fool or a poet would refuse peace at this moment".
But what did GW do, doggedly bit the cigar and the rest is history. Without UK as the launch pad, they would still greet you in German in Paris today: "hände hoch, amerikaner".
- cruiz-euro
You are getting this tragically wrong. It was only for one man, and one man alone that the English did not agree to peace. In the beginning British were doing very badly indeed, losing their planes and losing their merchant ships. GW himself commented (=admitted the possibility) that if they lose England they will fight from the colonies.
When Hess flied to Scotland offering peace observed one cabinet member: "Only fool or a poet would refuse peace at this moment".
But what did GW do, doggedly bit the cigar and the rest is history. Without UK as the launch pad, they would still greet you in German in Paris today: "hände hoch, amerikaner".
- cruiz-euro
Re: Not lame at all on both counts.
The point about my drivel about Winston was that it was veeery close that England would have agreed to peace. Had there been another prime minister, the chances for peace would have been 95%. Because that would have been the rational choice. Why? Because Britan had not lost any territory and was not about to gain anything either. People were openly asking was it worth sacrificing their country for Poland that did not exist any more.
And had peace happened, Herr Hitler would have beaten Russia without lend-lease. Yes, he was a maniac, yes he was throughly evil, but yes, he almost won the war.
About the competency of Wehrmacht? They were the guys who dunnit. Had Rommel had only 3-1 disadvantage he would have won. Yes, he showed it many times. Same thing with the eastern front. They took Crete with 10-1 disadvantage. They held the Italy front over similar odds. Had there been only 5-1 disadvantage in Normandy they would have prevailed.
Damn lucky for us Europeans they lost. After running out of Jews and gypsies they would have exterminated most of the peoples of Europe one by one.
- cruiz-euro
The point about my drivel about Winston was that it was veeery close that England would have agreed to peace. Had there been another prime minister, the chances for peace would have been 95%. Because that would have been the rational choice. Why? Because Britan had not lost any territory and was not about to gain anything either. People were openly asking was it worth sacrificing their country for Poland that did not exist any more.
And had peace happened, Herr Hitler would have beaten Russia without lend-lease. Yes, he was a maniac, yes he was throughly evil, but yes, he almost won the war.
About the competency of Wehrmacht? They were the guys who dunnit. Had Rommel had only 3-1 disadvantage he would have won. Yes, he showed it many times. Same thing with the eastern front. They took Crete with 10-1 disadvantage. They held the Italy front over similar odds. Had there been only 5-1 disadvantage in Normandy they would have prevailed.
Damn lucky for us Europeans they lost. After running out of Jews and gypsies they would have exterminated most of the peoples of Europe one by one.
- cruiz-euro
1 - 7 of 117 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Motorcycle Forums
A forum community dedicated to all motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, reviews, modifications, classifieds, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Easy Rider 2
31 Replies
gunsmoker
14 Replies
Martin.Thomas
12 Replies
Recommended Communities
