Solving the US gun violence problem

[Aroddo]

Christ, why does every time an international forum mentions WW2 it turns into an geriatric dickswinging contest about which nation was most responsible for winning the thing?

because WW2 is the only thing those people think they can be proud of.

 

[MobBoss]

You'd be the master of that wouldn't you McMobby

None of what I mentioned or linked was fantasy.

because WW2 is the only thing those people think they can be proud of.

Hardly.

 

[NinjaCow64]

You guys are all wrong. ANZAC contributed the most to the war.

 

[Agent327]

Uh..no simply no. The Blitzkrieg concept had its roots all the way back to WW 1 with the Scheflin Plan, and was modified for WW 2 as the Manstein Plan (after Guderian convinced Manstein that the main advancing flanks could be protected by counterattack).

How the plan came to be, and the roots of it arent basic military background stuff either, but slightly more advanced plans and ops type of study. Which is why you made your error just now. It didnt have anything to do originally with Russia, who was a presumed non-factor at the time (ala the agreement that split up Poland) the blitz was used to attack France.

But thats ok, I am more than happy to educate you. No charge of course.

You seem to be confusing the Blitzkrieg war concept with the Fall Gelb operation. The Blitzkrieg (post WW II term, by the way), was based on the fact that Germany couldn't hope to win a long drawn-out war. For which one has to bear in mind that Hitler nor the German military were expecting a major European war before 1942. Hence the Blitz invasions of Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium. These were all in preparation for the unavoidable attack on France, which your comments are related to.

The same concept was applied to the invasions of Yugoslavia (made necessary by the pro-Allied coup there) and Greece (to save the bungling Italians from defeat).

Oddly, Nazi Germany tried to apply the same concept to Soviet Russia, a territory far and far larger than anything they had tackled before. Small wonder they encountered 'some difficulties' there.

But that's quite alright, I don't mind educating a military mind like yours.

That your bringing up the Europe First thing really didnt counter my point at all. As the link plainly shows the effort by the USA on both fronts was still practically even despite the 'Europe First' policy due to the efforts of men like MacArthur. It was simply another error you made in your assumptions.

Umm no. You are trying to argue what happened 'due to MacArthur's efforts' to undermine any existing Europe First strategy. That only shows that such an overall strategy did exist, or else MacArthur's 'efforts' would have been unnecessary.

Well, the comparison, for lack of a better word, is just stupid. The Viet Cong used jungle paths for resupply that back then were not readily or easily targeted like German factories could be. We also were not allowed to bomb the actual sources of that material: communist China, but in WWII no such limitations existed.

Apples and oranges Jeleen. Similar in many ways, but still decidedly different.

So why the 'bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age'? It was bound to fail, as you so clearly show. Which is my point. Nothing to do with 'apples and oranges', as it's simply comparing warfare methods from different wars, in this case, strategic bombing. (By the way, Nixon did extend the war to Laos and Cambodia, illegally.)

Then you should have said the T-34.

Which is what I did. Soviet markers are easily mixed up: just a matter of using the wrong number. As is obvious, since you easily deduced from what I said that I did in fact mean the T-34.

You also said the Sherman wasnt used by the Soviets, but I proved otherwise.

I just gave you a link where it was considered an improvement over some Soviet tanks and outfitted to Soviet units as a preference. Yes, its true that the main gun was upgraded on some of the Shermans delivered, but to say it wasnt used, as you alleged, was simply wrong.

If some units did use it, it was because they had no T-34s available. In 1942 production was trying to pick up after losing most of Soviet European industry locations to advancing German armies. The only advantage of the Sherman over the T-34 is that it could already be produced in numbers. Shipping them to Russia was another matter however. If it was used, that might refer to 1941-42, when the Red Army was desperately short of everything. (They did manage to relocate some 1,000 factories in their entirety, but that still leaves a production gap.)

I suggest you do a forum search on that. I've been using it for quite awhile to describe those short sighted on issues military like yourself.[/QUOTE]

And there's the personal sneer again. You claim you can play ball, but it seems to me you are incapable of not trying to hit the player.

I agree broadly. Strategic bombing being such a general tool its hard to trace specific German shortcomings to it but rather it leads to a general degradation of efficiency and effectiveness broadly. [...]

The reason for that failure to compete is strategic bombing and to a lesser extent being cut off from the rest of the world.

While the first is assumed, the second simply does not follow from it: in short, your conclusion is what needs to be proved, but it contradicts what you are saying yourself.

 

[MobBoss]

You seem to be confusing the Blitzkrieg war concept with the Fall Gelb operation.

Fall Gelb was based upon the Scheflin Plan with some minor modifications, which in turn became the Mainstein Plan as I mentioned.

Oddly, Nazi Germany tried to apply the same concept to Soviet Russia, a territory far and far larger than anything they had tackled before. Small wonder they encountered 'some difficulties' there.

Actually, they experienced wild success at the start of the invasion. They didnt experience difficulty until much later, when they had advanced so far their logistics couldnt keep up with the advance.

But that's quite alright, I don't mind educating a military mind like yours.

Oh please. All you done is regurgitated what I already said.

Umm no. You are trying to argue what happened 'due to MacArthur's efforts' to undermine any existing Europe First strategy. That only shows that such an overall strategy did exist, or else MacArthur's 'efforts' would have been unnecessary.

No, I never denied the policy didnt exist, I am merely showing you factually it didnt matter if you look at the actual effort of men and material the US sent to either front.

So why the 'bomb North Vietnam back to the Stone Age'? It was bound to fail, as you so clearly show. Which is my point. Nothing to do with 'apples and oranges', as it's simply comparing warfare methods from different wars, in this case, strategic bombing.

Again, the citys, factories making war material and major supply routes were well identified and reachable in WWII. Not so with the Vietnam War.

If some units did use it, it was because they had no T-34s available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks

In 1945, some units were standardized to depend mostly on them, and not on the ubiquitous T-34: 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, and 9th Guards Mechanized Corps.[11]

And there's the personal sneer again. You claim you can play ball, but it seems to me you are incapable of not trying to hit the player.

I played American Football. Hitting the player was part of the game. Those that couldnt handle it simply played in the band.

 

[El_Machinae]

because WW2 is the only thing those people think they can be proud of.

The UN helped eradicate smallpox through international organisation, scientific research, and massive grassroots charity efforts. Polio got its tail kicked in many, many regions through much the same way, and is well on its way to being finished off with a final push from international coordination and charity.

That's something to be proud of, historically, and it's something to be part of, today.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not sure if I've posted this, but see here

Would the Allies have won the war better if the Americans had been contributing as an 'arsenal of democracy' but NOT involved in the fighting?

Probably yes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The UN helped eradicate smallpox through international organisation, scientific research, and massive grassroots charity efforts. Polio got its tail kicked in many, many regions through much the same way, and is well on its way to being finished off with a final push from international coordination and charity.

That's something to be proud of, historically, and it's something to be part of, today.

It really isn't germane to this thread at all, much like all this discussion of WWI and WWII. But this comment reminded me of another tragic story in today's paper:

Gunmen Kill Nigerian Polio Vaccine Workers in Echo of Pakistan Attacks

At least nine polio immunization workers were shot to death in northern Nigeria on Friday by gunmen who attacked two clinics, officials said.

Most of the victims were women and were shot in the back of the head, local reports said.

Polio, which once paralyzed millions of children, is now down to fewer than 1,000 known cases around the world, and is endemic in only three countries: Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Since September — when a new polio operations center was opened in the capital and Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, appointed a special adviser for polio — the country had been improving, said Dr. Bruce Aylward, chief of polio eradication for the World Health Organization. There have been no new cases since Dec. 3.

While vaccinators have not previously been killed in the country, there is a long history of Nigerian Muslims shunning the vaccine.

Ten years ago, immunization was suspended for 11 months as local governors waited for local scientists to investigate rumors that it caused AIDS or was a Western plot to sterilize Muslim girls. That hiatus let cases spread across Africa. The Nigerian strain of the virus even reached Saudi Arabia when a Nigerian child living in hills outside Mecca was paralyzed.

Heidi Larson, an anthropologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who tracks vaccine issues, said the newest killings “are kind of mimicking what’s going on in Pakistan, and I feel it’s very much prompted by that.”

In a roundabout way, the C.I.A. has been blamed for the Pakistan killings. In its effort to track Osama bin Laden, the agency paid a Pakistani doctor to seek entry to Bin Laden’s compound on the pretext of vaccinating the children — presumably to get DNA samples as evidence that it was the right family. That enraged some Taliban factions in Pakistan, which outlawed vaccination in their areas and threatened vaccinators.

Since the vaccine ruse in Pakistan, she said, “Frankly, now, I can’t go to them and say, ‘The C.I.A. isn’t involved.’ ”

Dr. Pate said the attack would not stop the newly reinvigorated eradication drive, adding, “This isn’t going to deter us from getting everyone vaccinated to save the lives of our children.”

 

[Agent327]

Well, I'd say this thread is already plesantly derailed. Discussing ending US gun violence apparently isn't enough.

Fall Gelb was based upon the Scheflin Plan with some minor modifications, which in turn became the Mainstein Plan as I mentioned.

Which is my point. The Blitzkrieg concept is something different entirely.

Actually, they experienced wild success at the start of the invasion. They didnt experience difficulty until much later, when they had advanced so far their logistics couldnt keep up with the advance.

Seeing as they had almost complete surprise on their side, initial successes were nothing less than to be expected. The first signs of trouble already arose around Kiev; the Southern front progressed far less efficiently than the the two other fronts. It was part of the reason for the fatal delay of the Battle for Moscow. At the end of 1941 two out of three major objectives had not been obtained (Moscow, Leningrad), and logistical problems appeared to have been widely underestimated, as well as the actual tank force of the USSR, and the extent of its reserves.

Oh please. All you done is regurgitated what I already said.

I have my own sources, thank you.

No, I never denied the policy didnt exist, I am merely showing you factually it didnt matter if you look at the actual effort of men and material the US sent to either front.

Which is beside the point, as it was the result of MacArthur efforts, as you claim.

Again, the citys, factories making war material and major supply routes were well identified and reachable in WWII. Not so with the Vietnam War.

Again, why then the massive bombardments of North Vietnam? Against equally well-determined targets? And how are both strategic bombing campaigns not comparable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease_Sherman_tanks

Which reads as follows:

The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter che or cha (&#1063.[citation needed] The diesel engined M4A2 used by the Red Army were considered to be much less prone to burn and explode than Russian tanks.[9]

A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.[10]

The first 76-mm-armed Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the summer of 1944.[11] In 1945, some units were standardized to depend mostly on them, and not on the ubiquitous T-34: 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, and 9th Guards Mechanized Corps.[11]

So, to complement the Russian production of the T-34 (totalling over 57,000 tanks) it received a total of 4,100 Shermans, almost half of which arrived after mid-1944.

I played American Football. Hitting the player was part of the game. Those that couldnt handle it simply played in the band.

Very interesting. I played regular football. Hitting a player is considered a foul. Hence the expression 'play ball'.

 

[Flying Pig]

I played rugby, where not hitting a player is considered a crime. Those who couldn't hack it played football.

 

[Borachio]

You guys are all wrong. ANZAC contributed the most to the war.

According to that Crash Course History guy, WW2 would probably not have happened at all but for Hitler. So I think his contribution was crucially important.

 

[MobBoss]

Which is my point. The Blitzkrieg concept is something different entirely.

Rofl. No, its not entirely something different. Its simple a (slight) modification of plans they had already had used before, tailored for their specific situation.

Which is beside the point, as it was the result of MacArthur efforts, as you claim.

Of course its not beside the point. What actually matters are the actual numbers involved. And in that the split between the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific was almost equal.

And how are both strategic bombing campaigns not comparable?

Well, for starters we couldnt bomb China, even though they were supplying the war effort. That simply wasnt the case in Europe. Secondly, our intel was a lot better in Europe than it ever was in Vietnam, which allowed us to better identify strategic targets.


Which reads as follows:

So, to complement the Russian production of the T-34 (totalling over 57,000 tanks) it received a total of 4,100 Shermans, almost half of which arrived after mid-1944.

Yup. And the link also confirms you were in error in your earlier comments about the M4 not being used by the Soviets.

Very interesting. I played regular football. Hitting a player is considered a foul. Hence the expression 'play ball'.

That means something very different in the USA. 'Play Ball' is what is used in baseball games to start the game or commence play.

 

[Agent327]

Rofl. No, its not entirely something different. Its simple a (slight) modification of plans they had already had used before, tailored for their specific situation.

You're laughing at the wrong person, because you still don't get it. But let me explain it to you: Blitzkrieg warfare employed the close cooperation of airforce and ground forces, something entirely absent from Allied concepts.The Blitzkrieg concept is based on the fact that Germany could not sustain a long-drawn-out war, and made the most effective use possibly of the miltary forces at Germany's disposal.

It was applied in Poland, Denmark, Norway (with naval asistance, but less effectively), and in the case of Fall Gelb, plus the attacks on Yugoslavia and Greece.

Your Schlieffen-plan modifications only apply to the attack on France (and they were, by the way, decisively changed before the final assault, because Hitler, for once, wasn't happy with using a WW I plan for a WW II situation). and then it might still not have worked if not for the use of Blitzkrieg tactics.

Of course its not beside the point. What actually matters are the actual numbers involved. And in that the split between the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific was almost equal.

Which was a result from MacArthur's efforts, according to your claim. Efforts which would have been entirely unnecessary had there not been a Europe First strategy. So all you are doing is confirm there actually was a Europe First strategy.

Well, for starters we couldnt bomb China, even though they were supplying the war effort.

So was the USSR.

That simply wasnt the case in Europe. Secondly, our intel was a lot better in Europe than it ever was in Vietnam, which allowed us to better identify strategic targets.

You are again missing the point, which was about the (lack of) effectiveness of strategic bombing. You may be unaware of the fact that strategic bombing was abandoned as a strategy after Nam, precisely because of its ineffectiveness. The same ineffectiveness that made Germany fight on til utter defeat, despite all the mass bombings of their homeland.

And the link also confirms you were in error in your earlier comments about the M4 not being used by the Soviets.

I confirmed there were a limited number of Shermans in use by the USSR, half of which only arrived after 1943. But given the choice a Soviet tank commander would prefer the T-34; during testing tank crews weren't too impressed with the Sherman tank. In late 1941 and most of 1942 such a luxury did not exist (most existing tank forces had been completely wiped out and production was at a low point due to huge territorial losses, combined with the removal of over 1,000 factories to behind the Urals).

That means something very different in the USA. 'Play Ball' is what is used in baseball games to start the game or commence play.

Thanks, very informative.

 

[MobBoss]

You're laughing at the wrong person, because you still don't get it. But let me explain it to you: Blitzkrieg warfare employed the close cooperation of airforce and ground forces, something entirely absent from Allied concepts.The Blitzkrieg concept is based on the fact that Germany could not sustain a long-drawn-out war, and made the most effective use possibly of the miltary forces at Germany's disposal.

Except the concept wasnt based on the fact of Germany not sustaining a long-drawn-out war. Hitler actually was planning a long war, and the German armament industry didnt even maximize until 1944. The concept was simply an attempt to keep an already reeling enemy continually off balance, and to defeat an enemy before it can fully mobilize or react to the attack. It worked great against Poland and France for the simple reason their logistics train was able to maintain the push. This wasnt true in Russia where the lead elements of the Army advanced so far, so fast that the logistics couldnt keep up.

Btw, the term we use in the military for this is Combined Arms Theory. Its the real concept behind this and its real purveyor was Gurderian. Its really the basis for any modern military concept even today. And fwiw, the Germans never used the word Blitzkrieg in any plans or operations. The word was simply a media creation and nothing more.

Your Schlieffen-plan modifications only apply to the attack on France (and they were, by the way, decisively changed before the final assault, because Hitler, for once, wasn't happy with using a WW I plan for a WW II situation). and then it might still not have worked if not for the use of Blitzkrieg tactics.

It wasnt just Hitler, but the General staff had their doubts as well of an all out offensive resulting in a decisive victory since the Schlieffen plan was ultimately a failure. But what occurred in Poland made them realize it could work, and the plan was put into effect for the assaults in the West.

Which was a result from MacArthur's efforts, according to your claim.

He is the main figure, but he was hardly alone is making it happen.

Efforts which would have been entirely unnecessary had there not been a Europe First strategy. So all you are doing is confirm there actually was a Europe First strategy.

I never denied there WAS a Europe First strategy! I mean really I've been saying as much for pages now. What I am saying is even with their being such a policy, the division of material and effort was still pretty much equal between the European and Pacific theaters. So, YES, there ws a Europe First Strategy, but it didnt really affect the division of effort of the USA.

So was the USSR.

Errr? Huh? What in the hell do you mean by this? Germany was at war with the soviets during the Allied Strategic Bombing effort.

You are again missing the point, which was about the (lack of) effectiveness of strategic bombing. You may be unaware of the fact that strategic bombing was abandoned as a strategy after Nam, precisely because of its ineffectiveness. The same ineffectiveness that made Germany fight on til utter defeat, despite all the mass bombings of their homeland.

This is an error on your part. There is simply no doubt that strategic bombing affected the outcome of the war; particularly in regards to fuel reserves, and parts for tanks and Uboats. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

The attack on oil production, oil refineries, and tank farms was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives.

German insiders credit the Allied bombing offensive with crippling the German war industry. Speer repeatedly said (both during and after the war) it caused crucial production problems. Admiral Karl Dönitz, head of the U-boat fleet (U-waffe), noted in his memoirs failure to get the revolutionary Type XXI U-boats (which could have completely altered the balance of power in the Battle of the Atlantic) into service was entirely the result of the bombing.

And lets not forget that Europe was only half of the war:

In October 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe said the sinking of Japanese vessels by U.S. aircraft combined with the B-29 aerial mining campaign were just as effective as B-29 attacks on industry alone,[171] though he admitted, "the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s." Prime Minister Baron Kantarō Suzuki reported to U.S. military authorities it "seemed to me unavoidable that in the long run Japan would be almost destroyed by air attack so that merely on the basis of the B-29s alone I was convinced that Japan should sue for peace."

Sounds pretty effective to me.

 

[bbman4000]

Experts have been looking for common factors in violent crimes for ages in an effort to identify potential mass murderers before they start killing.

And since "guns don't kill people - people do" everyone knows better to restrict access to the actual murder weapons. So experts are left to find out which kinds of people can be blamed. Right after the Columbine massacre the most likely influences were quickly identified: rock music and video games. However, no steps against violent video games were taken, so that couldn't have been it.

However, there is statistical proof for the most common trait that connects 99.9% of all violent gun crimes that has been so far ignored completely: Nearly 100% of all deadly shooters were male!

Solution: No guns for men.

Sure, men will still be able to aquire guns, but it will be harder for them to get some and the amount of guns in the hands of men will decline over time.
Unfair? Maybe, but the american male has clearly proven that he can't be relied on to act responsibly and can't be trusted with a deadly weapon.

Oppressor!!!!


Stop denying.

Men can't be trusted with guns but they can be trusted with cars when they are responsible for the majority of car accidents and other car related issues?

What is with this oppressive world? if its not the government, its the people oppressing other people with cars, rules and other things that are in place to deny.

Guns should not be banned and those who do are just oppressors and the same people that believe videos game should be banned or censored, men and women should be in leagues based on like social status, looks etc...


Stop forcefeeding your sick need to oppress, haven't you done enough?

 

[NinjaCow64]

I think that he wasn't being serious. If he was being serious, I imagine that the numbers would be skewed anyway as women would probably own less guns. I don't have statistics for that, but I do have statistics that say that more women want gun control than men that want gun control, that is from here. I imagine that would correlate between gun ownership as I seriously doubt someone who would want to ban Semi-Autos would own one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Geriatric?

Dont make me find you.

I was referring to the age of the conflict, not to the members of the members posting about it.

Although you make a good point. If any of present company took part in defeating Ze Germans, swing those wrinkly appendages! You deserve it!

 

[r16]

kinda pointless point . Sherman was liked by its Soviet crews . When at the end of WW2 Lend Lease deliveries were to be returned , a Soviet tank unit drove its tanks to the a loading harbour . First officer to arrive on location saw P-39 fighter aircraft were loaded onto an American ship which had compacted into a metal lump , in the way one sees in the movies where the heroin is inevitably in some car to be saved in the nick of time . When full the ship would leave port and travel some miles into sea and dump everything overboard . The Russian officer made such a plea that only the turrets were taken and the hulls became tractors all over Siberia .

which can further be explained by the notion that Russians who operated Western equipment were considered contaminated and were not given Russian equivalents . Sherman being better than say Valentine might explain the attitude .