|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The big deal with cruiser tanks is that the Brits legitimately believed that they could force a breakthrough with infantry tanks, then pour cruiser tanks into the gap like horsemen and then go gallivanting around the rear lines without any infantry riding along. In practice, that never even happened once. The Germans never believed in that, the Panzer divisions always brought a ton of motorised infantry along with them. Leopards were not fast to exploit breakthroughs, they were fast to contain breakthroughs. But infantry tanks were essentially just "Breakthrough" tanks ala Tiger I, KV-1 under a new, exciting coat of paint The idea isn't dumb, because that's what the Germans were doing for quite some time! And the Brits had plenty of Bren carrier lying around to transport infantry, so the problem isn't with infantry not being there with them. The problem is that the train of thought that led to Cruiser Tanks came to the conclusion that they had to sacrifice firepower and defense to achieve speed.
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Mmmm, not really... infantry tank comes from a philosophy that may result in something that resembles a heavy tank, but it's not the same thing. T-26 and H35 were infantry tanks. So was Matilda, even if it was heavier armoured. Matilda II's 2 pounder with no HE shell at all made it ineffective against fortified positions and it wasn't particularly hot against tanks either. But KV was specifically chosen due to experiences of fighting against fortified positions in Winter War where the thinly armoured T-28 medium hadn't quite cut the mustard. With its higher velocity 76.2mm gun it could perform roles that its predecessors couldn't: T-35 had carried high velocity 45mm guns for dealing with tanks and a low velocity 76.2mm gun to lob HE. At the same time KV had better mobility than Matilda, Valentine or Churchill. That doesn't change the fact that the Matildas and other Infantry tanks were designed to support infantry in order to break through lines of defense, which is the whole point of "Breakthrough" tanks. Whether or not they were suitably capable is not the matter at hand. Their doctrines seem to have the same general concept of Blitzkrieg, but they failed when it came to using it because of inadequate equipment while trying to use the same tactic on those who pioneered it, and against Rommel who 'mastered' it. (Since you're not doing much Blitzkrieging in 1944 Europe.) And I'm not calling anything a Cavalry tank, and certainly not just because I looked at the max speed it could achieve. You're telling me that the Panther can be a Medium tank and a Heavy tank, while telling me that the Matilda II can be an Infantry tank but NOT a Breakthrough tank, even thought the Matilda II followed the infantry and helped clear defensive positions in order to break through them and allow other, faster units to advance.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the assessment that there wasn't much blitzkrieging going on in 1944 is only correct if you think the word can't apply to the Allies. Sorry. Point is still that Infantry tanks are essentially Breakthrough tanks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In that case we may call any tank or tankette a breakthrough tank as long as it can follow infantry and carries any type of peashooter. Shouldn't there be some deeper similarities in design and purpose, such as a large caliber gun that can clear fortified positions? With its armament Matilda II was completely incapable of performing one of the primary tasks that you would expect from a heavy breakthrough tank. Aside from a larger caliber gun, what other differences exist between a Matilda II and a KV-1? "Design and purpose"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
spectralent posted:What relevance to military service could this possibly have? Hippies are peace-loving communists. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
WW2 Data Today's update is interesting due to what rounds it covers. The update goes over projectiles from the 37 to 47 mm range, but some are for lesser known guns, or don't match any guns that I could find in Italian production, and I have to make some educated guesses. Pardon any errors on my part. Firstly, we see two rounds labelled 37/40mm. This means its a 37mm caliber, with 40 calibre lengths for the barrel (1480mm in length). The only thing I could find for that would be the up-gunned Fiat 3000 (Commonly known as the L5/30) and the M11/39. I imagine the guns used on both tanks are the same. The next round in terms of calibre is the 37/45mm. I'm not sure if this is a legitimate typo in my manual or not, as I cannot find any info on a 37/45mm gun, but there is a 37/54mm. The projectiles description lists it being for the 37/45mm AT gun, which the 37/54mm gun was also used for. You be the judge  Note that this entry also had "Kilograms" listed for the "Length" of the round, and the next projectile IS a 37/54mm round so, again, your guess is as good as mine.Next up is a 40/39mm projectile. This one's interesting because the only thing I could find listed with those sizes is the QF2 Pom-Pom gun, built by the British. Evidently, these would've been acquired before the start of hostilities. The last group of projectiles is the 47/32mm variety. Thankfully, this one is much more common, as you can find it on all the Italian medium tanks save the previously mentioned M11/39, and the Semovente 47/32.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
WW2 Data We move on to larger Italian calibers, but still retain some lesser known examples. Today's specimens are the 57/43mm, 65/17mm, and 70/15mm projectiles. The first caliber, the 57/43mm, was used with the QF 6 Pounder Nordenfelt gun, I think. The guns, though very outdated by WW2 standards, were still in use by the Italians during that time. Interestingly, they were earmarked for Anti-Tank use due to the high velocity of the projectile, although none of them appear to have seen combat use. Secondly, the 65/17mm projectiles were used by the 65mm Mountain Gun, otherwise known as the Cannone da 65/17 modello 13. Like many of Italy's weapons, they too were obsolete by WW2. Lastly, the 70/15mm rounds were used with the 70mm Infantry Gun or Cannone da 70/15. This last gun was even worse off than the previous two, being so outdated that it lacked a recoil system. But what projectile types were available? What filling did they use? All that and more at the blog! Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Somebody was covering the history of trucks and general motorised logistics in the younger days of the old thread, he started but then got distracted and didn't get very far I'm behind by quite a bit. That was me, and the pause has been due to a lack of time, mostly. The single posts can be found here: Truck chat begins (History of Truck Chat) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=456170532 Truck chat continues (WW1 Trucks) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=456498751 Truck chat continues (WW1 End) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=456529549 Truck chat continues (Interwar Period) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=456972375 Truck chat continues more (WW2 Trucks) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=457012477 Truck chat: Revenge of Truck Chat (Mostly Russian Truck-chat) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=458405879 Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 23:58
|
|
.
|
Disinterested posted:This is a good opportunity to ask a question Stahel doesn't answer: why, in the figures I listed above, would the IV's losses be 75% of total strength, while the III and II's losses were at 50%? Given most of the losses were reliability or supply related, were the IV's in 1941 that much more unreliable than the rest of the tank fleet? He says that they tended to ditch the heavier armour when they had to ditch vehicles for fuel and parts reasons as well, so I'm assuming that might have been a factor? Less Panzer IVs in service allows for a higher loss percentage due to breakdown and/or failure?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Endman posted:From what I've read, Winter wouldn't have been as huge of a problem if it wasn't for Autumn and the prolonged rainy season that turned the already appalling Russian roads into rivers of mud. German logistics became bogged down and ensured the Winter punched Jerry right in his frozen, unprepared testicles. It would've also been a lot better if the Germans weren't forced to delay Barbarossa until mid-June. I guess what I'm saying is that its not the Brits, the Americans, the French, the Australians, the New Zealanders, or even the Russians that won WW2, but the Yugoslavians and Greeks instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
lenoon posted:edit: and nobody will convince me otherwise Is that good? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Could we have a discussion about war movies? What is everyone's favorite war movie? Most accurate? Guilty pleasure? The Battle of Britain is probably my favorite war movie, and a contender for favorite movie of all time. The planes aren't accurate thanks to demobilization and lack of conservation efforts/groups, and I don't like the romance subplot all that much, but overall it touches on so many different aspects of the war that I can't help but enjoy it. Also, I think the air combat is some of, if not THE, best WW2 aerial combat captured on film, CGI or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I had a VHS copy of that as a kid that I wore the gently caress out. Years later, in college, I was at some airplane museum (maybe Chino?) and they had one of the Spanish 109s that were in the film. I geeked out about that more than any of the actual rare aircraft they had. Those Spanish 109's are equally rare  I would've totally geeked out too, just like how I geek out at the Avro Arrow every time I see it. There's a museum near my place with an Me-163 Komet and a Salamander and I absolutely love talking about how much of a piece of garbage the Komet is. And I recently discovered they have a position open for a tour guide... might have to apply and see where that takes me! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Isn't Moscow a giant railway hub in 1941? What does capturing Moscow do to Russian railway lines? e;fb Is there a map of the railway system in 1940's Russia? Closest I can find is something from 1910 or so and I'm curious about the logistics they were working with. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Lakirovanniy Grob Garantirovan (Lacquered Coffin is Guaranteed). That's not a wartime nickname though, much like "Ronson" it became popularized a long time after the war. Whatever the Russian nickname for the M3 Lee/Grant will always be funny in a morbid way, to me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Here you go. Moscow is a hub, but losing it isn't the end. Wasn't it "Coffin for Seven Brothers"? RE Moscow: I'm not saying it would be the end, but combining it with the loss of other major railway lines seems like it would seriously affect transportation capabilities. And thanks, I gotta remember to save this somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Surely alternative rail lines would've been laid down if the Germans were getting near Moscow? They did get near Moscow though  How labor intensive would it have been to create new rail lines in the midst of such a huge conflict, and where do you build them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think that there was probably some sort of contingency plan or study on what to do if it happened as Typhoon got close, but as the Germans neared the city wouldn't it have been clear around the time (Hoth or was it Halder?) the Germans got to their closest point they were likely out of steam? I don't know of any contingency plans, which is why I'm asking. Going off EE's map, it seems that E: Going off of maps of the German advance/frontline positions around December '41
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
WW2 Data We're starting to push into the higher calibers with Part 1 of the 75mm arsenal for the Italians. What were the 75/13mm projectiles used with? Skoda 75 mm Model 15 Which rounds could be used in the Italian heavy tank, the Carro Armato P.40? Which ones could be used in the Semovente 75/18 or 75/34? Which rounds had double rotating bands? And which round was called a "dual-purpose" round by both the Italians and Germans? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:One thing I've learned about the Nazis (I suspect this applies to all fascist powers) is that they were cockeyed optimists, through and through. I know we've talked before about racial superiority or strength of will being a magical force that fills all gaps and solves all problems, and maybe when you are carrying around that in your intellectual toolkit you end up being very optimistic? Maybe if you think one Aryan soldier is literally worth 1000 Slavic untermenchen attacking the Soviet Union sorta makes sense. Another thing that burned up any caution the Nazis had was the astonishing succsess they had early war. Basically they had succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams, and that sorta thing goes to your head. Well, the fanaticism that some units displayed did help them perform better. And when you've built yourself up for 25+ years as "We didn't lose against THE RUSSIANS  in World War 1!" "If it wasn't for the AMERICANS !"So when they completely wipe the floor with Poland in a month and then, 6 months later, do the same to the French and Low Countries, its no surprise that they'd have a very bloated ego by that point. After all, it took 4 years of bloody, worthless fighting in the west last time and they lost! Now you've cut that to 3 months and everyone's home by Christmas. And the Fascist rhetoric of "We have but to kick the door open for the entire structure to collapse" was looking rather good in the early stages of Barbarossa with the massive land grabs and deep penetrations. As for Rommel, iirc, he became well known after "Ghost Division" made important gains in France. Coupled with his performance in World War 1, he was seen as a good propaganda tool. He would've probably been captured in Africa had he not been sick from stress/work. Also, its not just the troops he (Hitler) lost in Tunisia. All those aircraft, the fuel, and the ships (transferred to the Italian Navy or otherwise) could've been used elsewhere. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Dude suffered from depression, didn't he? I think he might have been fighting the sadbrains when the second battle of El Alamein happened. Not sure, to be honest. I've only read his WW1 Biography so far, but I do know that he constantly overworked himself and had to be hospitalized on his return to Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I still think there's valid criticism of Rommel, given that he's making all sorts of daring and dramatic attacks during what is, essentially, garrison duty. For some reason he's trying to capture the Suez, despite the fact his mission statement is just "prevent the italians from totally collapsing". Yeah but if you can push the Brits out and get the Suez canal, that makes for a much longer supply line to Asia. (And for supplies going through the Middle East to Russia!) Its not like he said "gently caress it, off to the Suez!" and went on his merry way. He counter-attacked Wavell with such success that they shipped HIS rear end to India. They regained almost all (if not all) the ground the Italians lost a year prior. Continuing the push through Egypt made sense at the time. And then Rommel's supply lines get stretched to their limits, Malta doesn't fall, the Italian Navy fails to perform, Operation Torch and setbacks on the frontline all pile up until it becomes insurmountable and anyone that doesn't get evacuated to Sicily/Italy is forced to surrender.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Really this thread skews way to hard on the Axis powers being stupid. They weren't the unstoppable evil geniuses of post war myth and wheraboo fantasy but they also weren't the loving keystone cops. Let me tell you how and why the Panther tank is the worse tank of the war. Furthermore,
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:What were the factors that kept the armed forces of Italy from succeeding? They seem to have been pretty shoddy throughout the War. Can anyone info dump me on Italy? Don't hear too much about them and a lot of films/books/games would have you think it was just a purely German affair. Also curious on how the Hungarians and Romanians contributed to the Axis war effort, including acting as speed bumps for T-34s. The Romanians had oil, and this was the main cause of friction between Germany and Romania during the war. I unfortunately can't really name much else in the way of contributions they made, aside from men and lacklustre materiel. But at least they developed the IAR-80 and IAR-81! I love those planes even though they are largely forgotten. :romania: Hungary also had its fair share of men and materiel contributed to the war, but the only notable developments I can think of are the Turan tank, the Nimrod, and the Zrinyi. They did have plans for an indigenous Panther-like tank but it never got passed the prototype stage. Their small arms were generally outdated or bog-standard, and their aircraft were either derived from Italian designs or license-built copies of 109s. Oh, they did have a very little-known SMG in the form of the Danuvia 43M which was apparently well regarded, but I don't think I've ever seen a surviving example, and only once in photos. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No investment in technical development, especially radar. Basically this. I don't recall how good their fire control was, but they were basically a paper tiger. Their navy just wasn't up to date enough, and as a result they had a hard time controlling what is basically their own backyard. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The Italians got a strip of France approximately 30mi x 10 mi including the town of Menton. That's a lovely deal. The promise of Nice and Corsica dated from after Case Anton in 1942, so it has no bearing on Italy's war aims in 1940.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Broadly, Italian pre-war fire control design was pretty good, they bought the good designs of rangefinder and computer produced by Barr and Stroud towards the end of WW1 and followed an independent development path from that, they underinvested though so didnt manage to consistently modernise their battleships and as a result though they had the right technical idea it was not fully implemented. Their big defficiency was in training, they adopted laddering in the mid 30's as opposed to the RN who adopted it in 1918, they didnt train for Night Actions at all, often retiring rather than fighting at night after their first rather ugly suprise at the Battle of Matapan. They managed only really to damage a few RN ships and sink a couple of MTB's in surface engagements, whereas the RN racked up several Cruisers in return. Ah, that explains it. I remember hearing about how the Italian Battleships weren't as good as their counterparts but I didn't know about the laddering / poor training. Not that I'm really surprised about the poor training stuff considering how the Air Force and Army also had that same issue
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:If "capacity to put up with irritating subordinates/bosses" is a factor to weigh, Jellicoe also deserves a medal for putting up with Beatty and Churchill. What about every German officer under Hitler after Stalingrad? Or Russian officers before Stalingrad?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:edit x2: So, how about that Panther tank? Kind of a piece of poo poo, right? Worse than the covenanter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Cavalry is dumb and stupid, just look at the Charge of the Light Brigade! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Viapori is always worth a visit on a sunny day. Never lost a battle, only surrendered once! That GAZ-AAA quad-gun mount 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Way back in the day when I visited Hawaii and saw this I laughed about it all day. If it was anyone other than the Canadian representative it wouldn't have been as hilarious but it was a literally half-blind canuck who hosed up the nice copy of the surrender document and drat near derailed the surrender because the Japanese delegation refused to sign it until Nimitz (I think it was Nimitz) came back and initialed every edited line. Wouldn't be the first time a Canadian defaces an important document. "Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982" 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Halder was sat uselessly on his arse in Germany. The closest units were the IX (Geyer), XXXX [Pz] (Stumme), LVII [Pz] Kuntzen, XX (Materna) Corps, all fourth army units, so it's Kluge's Army. So I'm reading Robert Kirchubel's "Atlas of the Eastern Front" and, obviously, Typhoon has a nice description + series of maps for it. According to the book, the Germans had nearly 2 million men (78 Divisions), 14000 mortars and artillery pieces, 1000 tanks, and 1390 aircraft. The Russians had over 1.25 million men (95 divisions, 13 tank brigades), 7600 indirect fire weapons, 990 tanks, and 863 planes. (Edit: At the start of operation Typhoon) Guderian attacked first, between Novgorod Seversky and Kursk and made some good initial gains, mainly because STAVKA wasn't sure what to make of his independent movement/attack. Two days after Guderian's attacks, the rest of Heeresgruppe Mitte joined the advance. He notes a critical logistic problem for the Germans, which hampered their ability to take (or hold) ground. But the Russians were also suffering problems of their own in the form of massive losses. Between 30 Sept and 15 Oct they lost almost 2 million casualties (1.3 million captured, the rest dying in battle). 3.PanzerGruppe and 4.PanzerGruppe were the closest to Moscow, with 2.Panzer-Division being the closest German unit to Moscow. They had almost reached Lobnya, which is about 27 kilometers from Moscow. Things settled down from there, before German fortune started reversing. During the month of November, the Germans began the month with 2.7 million men and received no notable reinforcements, whereas the Russians started with 2.2 million men and added another 2 million by the end of the month. Kirchubel notes that the Nazis had 4 main problems: Troop Exhaustion, Personnel+Materiel Attrition, Anaemic Logistics, and Lack of Direction/Attainable Goals. Kirchubel's criticizes Von Kluge (who wasn't the commander of Heeresgruppe Mitte at the time of Operation Typhoon) as a plodding, unimaginative general. In fact, he's talked about Von Kluge's ineptitude twice in just a few pages. Does anyone have any more info on why? Oh, and from what I can tell from Kirchubel's maps the closest units to Moscow are: 2.Panzer-Division (XL Corps/4th Panzer Group) 106.Infanterie-Division (V Corps/4th Panzer Group) 1.Panzer-Division (LVI Corps/3rd Panzer Group) [Might be 4th, though, as they switched back and forth ]11.Panzer-Division (XXXXVI Corps/4th Panzer Group)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:When I first saw a photo of it I literally could not believe that a weapon this metal was real. GAZ-AAA mounts are the inspiration for the Middle East of today. FACT
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm almost afraid to ask, but what happened to all the Russian POWs that were captured during the advances of '41? Presumably nearly all of them were shipped to rear areas and worked to death? Are there any instances say during the winter counter offensives of advancing Russians suddenly liberating a bunch of captured dudes? Marched to whatever location(s) the Wehrmacht set up as prisoner camps and then slightly starve them because they don't have enough food for frontline units, much less captured Soviets. Some Soviets, whether you want to call them traitors, opportunists, or otherwise, join the ranks of the Germans and are shipped back to the front to fight, some do anti-partisan duty. Others do manual labour, escape to become partisans, die on the way, or are simply executed by SS men.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Yeah, its a cop-out to include mortars but you could also take "indirect fire weapons" as including mortars as well. As for Von Kluge RE:Typhoon, the consensus that Kirchubel reaches is that he waited too long and attacked the Russian defenses in depth (which they built thanks to him taking so long).  Taken directly from the book, apologies on the quality.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Well the numbers thing is historiographically significant because Soviet/Russian historians have, ironically, often blamed their huge losses in 41 on being outnumbered. What's your source on the German numbers? I want to add any books I can to my wishlist while we're on the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Book I have cites: Soviet numbers in Mawdsley Thunder in the East; German numbers Stahel Kiev 1941. Hmmm, its strange. Out of curiosity I checked the wikipedia page (yeah yeah) and they report the same number of German guns, but a drastically low number of German planes (less than half Kirchubel's number!). The Russian plane total is also different. Does Kirchubel lean one way or the other? I'm curious as to what he based his numbers on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Didn't Rommel somehow make the Hitler Youth more fanatical and like a pseduo military group? or was this bullshit I heard from somebody else? I've never heard this one. Rommel wouldn't have been in direct command of them and he died in October 1944. Their brutality and fanaticism was indoctrination and questionable training practices, so to speak. Also, he was hospitalized in mid-July. Hitlerjugend arrived in Normandy in March. Other than the two being in the same area at the time, I've never heard of him training them or doing anything to make them more fanatical or "fierce" Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:See also Hans-Joachim Marseille Wasn't Hitler's photographer Jewish?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Anything you hear along the lines of "Hitler's ______ was Jewish" is inevitably either bullshit or wildly exaggerated off someone having a great great great grandfather who once dated a Jewish girl or something. Maybe it was someone else. I vaguely remember a photo of Hitler/Goebbels and they look into the camera with a dumb face with a caption like "______ upon hearing the photographer was Jewish" Edit: found it  "Joseph Goebbels upon hearing photographer Alfred Eisenstadt's confirmation of being a Jew." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Eisenstaedt Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:23 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Was Marseille not cool though? He had a black friend that he made sure wasn't mistreated and, by all accounts I've heard, generally didn't give a poo poo about proper dress code or being a nazi. He was just a really loving good pilot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 02:36
|
|