News / Mass immigration to Poland - article and response [479]

Can you name one European country where a little diversity didnt get out of control:)

Love / How to please Polish women? [216]


So is your mate ugly, he cant dance and has an old car?

News / Mass immigration to Poland - article and response [479]


Its only mass murder if you kill them all at once.

Anyway we should save ourselves the social and financial costs of sorting out undesirebles from the hard workers and not let in ME ethnicities at all, Blacks have a thing for Islam so they should be largely out as well.

News / Mass immigration to Poland - article and response [479]

Norwegians have no right to their own country, give it to Poles.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Nope sorry, you dont release enemy soldiers and allow them to advance in the direction of their own lines, it never happened outside of your head. There were penal battalions or just regular infantry to do that.

German povs were in the case of various police organisations executed on the spot (survival rate of various SS, Gestapo and other assorted criminals in uniforms was 6% when captured) regular soldiers were sent to Gulag branches.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Yes but thats not due to Russian ineptitude or German awesomeness, its because after over 20 years of communist rule people in power didnt give a sh*t about human life, Zhukov used to clear minefields with people for example.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


But you claimed these generals were incompenent! :)


They had to, given how many troops were behind Stalins line and how significant were the 3 main cities they attacked.


Last i checked they overrun Finnland, eventually. Not to mention they had to contend with Mannerheims line and winter.

Now go read up, its fun reading history American style though:)

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


When Germany was in their highest point around 1943/44 so was Russia, and the peak of Russian capacities was so absurdly above German ones the Reich didnt have a prayer by then.


Actually Barbarossa was perfectly planned and executed, if you're talking about Kursk then no Germans were not overstretched, they syphoned all the troops they could from every place they could, at no point was Germany even close to Russian industrial and military capacities, the only moment when they came close to winning the war was under Moscow.


The 9th armored brigade taking Bobrujsk from the German 14th motorised division for example, also if you consider that you typically needed to pile 3-1 ratio for any given offensive and there's only about 400.000 more Russians thats pretty impressive add to that the fact that you were fortified on par with what the allies encountered at the Siegfrieds line and the Russians just rolled over that.

Then you get (though thats not Bagration anymore) Russian break in into Hungary via Hunyady's line which was a mountain fortification line that made the Atlantic wall and Siegfrieds look like a joke, and they broke it in 24 hours.

If you want to get really anal then lets bring Stalingrad where at the most crucial moment about 150.000 troops factory workers, women conscripts stopped dead over 500.000 crack German troops.

Yes Wehrmacht was better but the disparity (in case of Russia) was not that huge, its mainly a myth propagated by the West (of a primitive cowardly peasant that had to be rushed en masse) to hide the fact how poorly the allies performed compared to the Russians.

3:37 time to snooze, night.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Really? Then why did Russians win battles during Bagration using smaller forces.


Absolutely but thats again because Russian military sucked uncomonly bad even for the period, apart from that Russians didnt outnumber the Wehrmacht as much as Western allies did and still got better results through sheer determination, apart from that it proves that Germany didnt need the world piling up to defeat it, all it took was Russia.


So you mean that generals who practically invented mechanized warfare, in-depth defence and perfected blitzkrieg and combined arms combat used today by the entire world, and conquered militaries collectively numbering over 7 milion soldiers were incompetent?:)

Russia in 1940 had 5.3 milion soldiers, 3 times more tanks then all the armies of the rest of the world combined, twice the artillery, Red Army had more machineguns and smgs then all the armies of Europe, German generals were geniuses but it takes a bloody miracle for such a country to stand no chance.


Sorry bud but a typical motorised unit in Russia was 30% larger and Red Army had them in ratio of 4 to 5, as for airplanes they had about 10 times more.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


From 1943 onwards i do. When you look at Russian offensives and how they overran defensive lines (Hunyady's line for example) within days when Allies couldnt take Siegfrieds in weeks with forces 5 times that large you realise where statements about World having to pile up on the Wehrmacht come from.

Make no mistake Wehrmacht was the best army in the world from 13939 to 1945 but not that good.

Russians did beat you mainly through overwhelming numbers but they did it alone, its not like there were any British divisions in Russia in 1943 (or in Europe)

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Untill 1944 you had and you got your arse handed to you on a silver plate, up to Kurks the result was arguable, after it was over so was Germany.


I know you are but its also a Western source, the fact is the West was weak, their soldiers were weak, their efforts werent all that great and where Russians trampled German armies like no tomorrow Western allies failed, its only natural they'd sing praises afterwords, it sounds much better then "we sucked, they didnt."

Also Kursk is also history and given that Russians kicked your ass and proceeded so far as to liberate Kiev is a pretty hard evidence that Germany had no juice left, Normandy didnt help end the war it helped end it quicker.


Actually Brits developed the only relatively good variant of the Sherman "Firefly" but Americans refused to use it as a principle of national pride.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Oh please BB sometimes you sound like little Goebbels, Russia alone took you down using not even half of its available manpower and having lost at least a third of its industry (since you were sitting on the most populous parts).

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


In 1939 Poles had among others THE most modern anti-tank rifle in the world, one of the most advanced light tanks and tactical bombers, our automatic rifle would be later copied in German gewehr43 and consequently become the basis of such designs for a decade to come and we invented the tank periscope that all armies use to this day and were the first to equip our tanks with them.

We were the leading country in Europe in calculating machines (known to you as ancestors to computers) and inventors of most of the advanced incryption and decryption devices, it was our matemathicians that later on cracked the enigma.


I'm not crisizing the US army of the time, it was a powerfull fighting machine, i'm critisizing you for talking off the top of your arse.


And yet it took only Russia to bring you down.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Jesus Christ i know you're an idiot but now you're also an illiterate one, the Sherman was junk the jeep was good, simple enough for you? Read what others write before you decide to reply to someones post.


You're as always a sad little retard attempting discussion on topics that outgrow you. The total R&D for P-51 was 19 months, the prototype was delivered in 117 days thats all so no it was not designed, built and put into action in 117 days.

It was designed in 90 days, developed in over a year and a half (from prototype to the final version) and put into combat 2 years after the order has been placed (in 1942) you can go back to your cave now.


Yes it was pointed out by a guy who knows next to nothing about tanks and now supported by you, our village idiot.

The first batch of Shermans were direct replacements to Grant tanks and they were delivered to Africa specifically to fight German Pz IIIs and IVs so yeah the idea behind the Sherman was exactly to fight enemy armor.

But let me ask you what was Sherman built for according to you? As a mobile kitchen? A shield behind which infantry could take a crap? Why was the Sherman given the heaviest (in its time) possible anti-tank gun? Why was it loaded on AT ammo?


A T-34 which was smaller and 5 tonnes lighter was a safer place to be too so whats your point? In fact so was late Pz IV with shields.


Like what? Russians had better rocket artillery, Americans had better aircraft, Brits had better radar, all of the technologies Germans messed around were present at least from 1930s.

The technological superiority of German armed forces is a myth that doesnt hold up to closer scrutiny, the fact is that Germans had just invented a much more modern approach to war and could and did do more with weaker weapons but for obvious reasons West and Russia avoid it.

Take the American army where every trooper had an M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle, at the same time Germans used a 98Kar bolt action design that remembered WW1, Germans simply messed around with technologies hoping they'll save them but the same or similar level in almost every field was available both to East and West and more often then not Germans did fall behind.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


If by combined arms warfare you meant shell the sh*t out of a target, then bomb it, then fire some more cannons for good measure and then move in land units then yeah.

The only general who practiced mobile war was Patton. Allies did not use combined arms like the Germans did.


They were also not intended to get murdered by enemy tanks, yet they did.


Yet they were a great success:))


Typically? German armor withdrew while murdering all ground based opposition, you needed up to thirty combat flights to destroy a tank with a plane, why do you think German armor was able to operate for weeks in Normandy under allied air dominance.


So you're arguing that Sherman was not designed to be a tank?:) The Sherman was first employed in Africa where it was superior to most German armor (which at the time was even crappier) and it was sent there specifically to fulfill an anti-armor role, thats what it was created for.


Americans sent them to Africa as assault platforms superior to anything Germans had at the time, all US tanks were designed specifically to fight other tanks including Stuarts that had a 75mm main gun.


Both were medium tanks, both were produced as basic tanks of their armies and as medium tanks both were each others close equivalents. Sherman had weak armor and a weak main gun therefore it was not a good tank.

Your argument is that it was cheap so i brought in T-34 which was about 20% cheaper, the same class of tank and superior in terms of speed, range, armor and gun, just because a tank is cheap doesnt make it a good fighting machine, its characteristics do and thats where Sherman fails across the board.


There was a much greater demand on a jeep then on the Sherman, there were over 600k built, to give you an idea, you need only so many tanks but jeeps worked in resupply, reconnesaince,medium transport, towing, engineering, ambulance duties, logistics etc, there was no need to inflate the demand on them.


Because you think so? If a tank performes so very poorly in two basic fields, is flammable, easy to hit and is slow (Panzer IV was 9 kmph faster, T-34 was 15 kmph faster, the panther was 17 kmph faster).

So unless you can provide an argument for its good combat performance it was a very very bad tank, T-34 is a good example that you can make a cheap(er) tank thats much much better.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Not if you're a tanker sitting inside a Sherman and knowing even a loud fart can kill you.


Sherman was not a success, there were a lot of them and thats it, whenever they were used without artillery support or tank destroyers they died like gerbils in a meat grinder, yes there are several exceptions but thats what they are, exceptions.

The tank had two good features, it was cheap and easy to repair on the field, everything else about it was crap.


Actually it was, it sucked at it but it was definitely designed for an AT role.


All models, T-34 goes from good to a f*cking monster on wheels when it got an 85mm main gun.


Russians developed the T-34 in one year and that was in peace time, Sherman was designed and developed in 2 years.


Only because there was so much artillery and air support behind them, as a stand alone offensive platfom they sucked anal orifice.


By 42 every Russian tank had a radio and an intercomm.

As for tank ratios research the battles around Calais.

My personal opinion in regards to why Sherman was so crappy, people made money producing tanks, producing a good tank would not neccesitate such massive production numbers so it was deliberately shite, of course thats my theory but its the only reasonable excuse i can come up with as to why Americans would outfit their soldiers with such utter junk.


Shermans were not very usefull in the pacific, too heavy, there were a few there but the main tank used against the japs was the Stuart.


I mean the 85mm D-T5 gun which shat all over Tigers frontal armor and made a firefly look like a kitten.


Yes but thats because of Russian habit of giving conscripts tank training that went "this level does that, dont touch this level and push button X to shoot".

The tank was by then an equivalent of a Panther, the crews were still a bunch of civilians with crapped pants.


It had the same range and penetration because it, like the 88 originated from an AA gun but it did had much less precision.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


Sorry then, my bad.


Not anymore, newer M-16s are better in that regard but its smaller caliber means that enemies quite often will manage to shoot back even when shot in the chest/lower torso.

AK-47 kill outright and even if you shoot someone in the limb he'll get thrown back.


High profile, thin armor and weak main gun also flammable like dry crap.


It sucked against Pz IVs as well.


Well they could have produced a decent tank like Russians did, T-34 was a very good tank and it definitely had the numbers, it was also cheaper to build then Sherman and could take on every German tank including the Tiger.


No it was not, compare it to Russians who were in the same situation and produced a tank orders of magnitude better in every aspect save for crew comfort, but thats mainly cuz Russians never gave a sh*t bout people.


Actually Tiger tanks typically took on Shermans in ratio of 5-10 to 1 and pissed all over them with warm yellow balls juice, it took 75-150mm howitzers and dedicated tank destroyers both aerial and land based.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


They were developed independently. Germans had rocket artillery about 1 year before the Russians.


Sorry no, Russians designed their own, built their own and they turned out to be significantly better then the German ones.


You're an idiot or an American, in 1940 Russians had the best tanks, the best artillery their purpose built PPSH was a beast in urban and assault fighting, in land combat Russians were 3 years ahead of Germans in 1940.

Matter of fact they matched the West in airplane quality and surpassed them in every other respect during WW2.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]


1. Maus superheavy tank 190 tonnes of weight, 128mm main gun, two prototypes were made, the thing was torturously slow and few bridges could take it, it was supposed to be followed by a 1500 tonne landcruiser tank.

2-4 experimental mine clearing vehicles, 3rd one is American i think.

5. Russian transport plane, dont remember the type but it was experimental, it was boeing sized and they even tried to slap some armored turrets with huge caliber guns onto it.

6. pre-war experimental Tsar tank, Russians tested it but it kept toppling over because of these huge wheels plus they were pretty fragile with all these spokes so they scrapped it.

7. tankplane, Russians took the all-terrain concept to the limits and tried to make an armored airplane that could fight equally well on land and in the sky.

Also Germans were on their way to build this:

Ratte - 1500 tonnes, main gun taken off a battleship and about 20 other guns slapped in various places, they actually made a turret for that thing but didnt make it in time with the rest before the war was over.


Actually no, they made it a lot better having about 4 times the effective range of the American models.

History / Weapons of WWII (Poland and other countries) [239]

You guys mentioned only the dull ones, here's some real weapons:)

Maus.

Mine clearer.

Mine clearer

And more.

In mother Russia planes fly You

Tsar tank

tankplane

Life / Charity In Poland (tradition and attitude towards door-to-door collecting) [19]


Depends to whom, if Poles need to help Poles, Ukrainians or Hungarians they give give and give the way you probably havent seen anywhere else, there's planeloads of blood, food and stuff, i still remember how we helped our own in 2001 flood or in the 50s when Poland was p*ss poor and still mountains of stuff went to Hungary, we didnt have it ourselves but found it for others.

On the other hand 2005 tsunami didnt gather that much. As for domestic charity google "Wielka Orkiestra Świątecznej Pomocy".


And dont be a prick.

Genealogy / Genetic difference between Poles and selected others. [83]

Whats with you and penises Joe?

News / Poland's fight against paedophilia [277]


You know whats the saddest part about you couch preachers, if i gave you a loaded gun and put you in a room with a convicted rapist and told you to shoot him you'd shyt your pants, cry yourself into hysteria like a little cowardly faggot but you wouldnt pull the trigger.

Now dont go telling us how you would because the fact is 99.9% of people who make such statements would sh*t their diapers when forced to kill a fish at christmas let alone a human being so shut up.

Yes there's people like serial killers you need to put to death, some of the sexual offenders too but they're human beings and even if they lived like scumbags their life has some value on that principle alone so even if we send them to gallows lets not do it lightly.


No you're just a faggy couch potato who makes morally heavy statements but if put in a real life situation due your peanut sized balls and hollywood based outlook on life and death hitting real life you would be unable to do anything but cry like a raped wuss, my personal philosophy is to never have an opinion i couldnt stand behind myself.

These people are twisted dark and broken and yes sometimes they need to be killed so our kids/women sleep in peace but i hope cowardly pathetic lowly couch preachers like you never ever have a say in matters of their life and death.

Love / Are all Polish men Psychos? [111]


Its PF relationship forum, we know.

Love / Are all Polish men Psychos? [111]


You're a weekend ass, when his wife gets back in shape after his third child he'll stop shagging you.


Yeah, he cant sleep because his newborn kid is crying:)


I'm going to cut you up now.

News / Poland's fight against paedophilia [277]


Prison costs money, castration does not.


You're f*cking clueless, sometimes reading this forum is like reading apes discussing physics, why do you think there's serial killers and pedophiles in the first place? These people are slaves of urges largely beyond their control.


IF castration works to stop these urges then it has nothing with punishment its simple prevention (apparently regular injections of a drug do work).


No pedophilia cannot be cured, while i respect Starowicz the history of this ilness bears more weight than his academic opinion.

History / WAS KATYŃ GENOCIDE? Polish officers were killed [237]


Interesting, since when did genocide had to be carried out against all Poles when according to most definitions targetting a specific group based on its nationality is genocide? Therefore we can speak of genocide commited on Polish elite or inteligentsia.

No one at any points spoke of genocide against all Poles, genocide was commited on elements of Polish nation based on their inclusion into said nation aka murder by ethnicity.

Thats called genocide.

Love / Polish girls attitudes towards sex. [568]


You've got awesome tits, wanna make out?


Whenever some girl tried a pick up line i didnt know what to say, women are not supposed to bloody pick up guys, its our job, its unnatural when a woman does it.

Genealogy / Genetic difference between Poles and selected others. [83]


Diverse people are different from different people who are not different from nondifferent people.


In colorfull orchard there are trees, all these trees are beatifull and constitue a diverse orchard and then they start talking to me about the universe and finally i know that LSD shot was worth the money.

How about we cut on the botanical analogies?:)))


There is so much wrong with this statement despite it being right, its awesome :))

And to add something of value, Poles are among the last more or less pure slavic strain, various Russians, Ukrainians, Belariusians etc have a strong finno-ugric line in them while genetic research proved something interesting, Poles remain more or less a coherent "pure" genetic strain since they migrated here, despite the wars and the diversity of the Commonwealth.

Genealogy / Genetic difference between Poles and selected others. [83]


Actually it reveals that some of his ancestors within a few generations back were a mouse and a pig.