Language / pronounce "Kocham Cię" [57]

Ko- hom chehw as plk123 writes (w/ stress on the "hom" part)

(and smile when you say "cheh" ! :)
Seriously, it softens the "ch" sound. Anglo speakers tend to overpronounce the Polish "ci" sound making it sound like "cz". There's actually quite a difference to the Polish ear.

History / Polish weapons and militaria - got any? [153]

I'm actually a Polish reenactor (WW2 mostly) here in the US. The group I'm a part of sets up displays, marches in parades and even lectures in schools and such. As a result I've somehow managed to assemble quite a collection over the years of original items - helmets, uniforms, medals, gear, insignia and so forth.

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

My vote would be for something maybe not so grand, even a bit ugly... but innovative and amazing in it's time: the US M1 Garand rifle.

Later in the war of course other nations started regularly fielding semi-auto rifles, some that were more advanced than the Garand, but the Garand was the first universally issued semi-auto and set the stage. It was accurate, rugged, simple and exceedingly effective.

I've fired them before on the range and there is NOTHING that compares. I'm getting all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it now..:^P

• 
  m1garand.jpg
  

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

Wroclaw Boy

M-16 vs AK - classic mistake to try to compare. They're like apples and oranges.

M16: very very accurate, light weight and easy recoil make it more comfortable and less fatiguing to shoot, smaller ammo so more can be carried. Bad points - must be kept meticulously clean otherwise dependability suffers, more prone to breakage and damage than AK.

AK-47: exceedingly rugged and simple, bigger ammo packs more punch than M16's smaller rounds, cheap to produce. Bad points, poorer accuracy when compared to M16, larger ammo packs more recoil and is more fatiguing to shoot.

neither wins this fight, they are different animals. (That said, I'd rather have the AK personally )

Sherman tank - absolutely not a piece of crap. It was an amazing piece of machinery. The trouble is that it was mismatched with it's main adversaries. You had a medium tank vs heavy tanks - two different categories. To understand it, you need to look at the circumstances and concept behind it - the allies needed NUMBERS when it was first produced. To get large numbers of vehicles across the Atlantic, you need to make them smaller and be able to produce them in LARGE numbers to get them where they need to be FAST. In this regard, the Sherman was a phenomenal success.

My memory is failing me at the moment, but wasn't it a German tank officer who once said something to the effect of:
"a Tiger tank can take on 4 Shermans and beat them all, trouble is that there were always 5..."

OK back to work before my boss kills me :)!

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

time means

The M1 kicks like a mule for sure.. to shoot one feels like your shoulder-firing artillery!
One thing though - when it comes to the problem of not be able to add extra ammo to top off your magazine, that's not as big an Achilles heel as it's made out to be. Here's why - you are able to eject the remaining clip/rounds with ease. So within seconds you could eject the remaining rounds and reload a fresh clip. Not overly efficient but for sake of speed and ease - it worked, and not all that much different than an AK or M16 when you think about it? You would still have to eject the clip, press in a few more rounds, then reload your clip, no?

Thant damn "ping" though - I'm sure that's got many a soldier killed back in the day...

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

You're still missing the point (I think?) what I'm saying is this:

if the US was building heavy tanks on par with what the Germans were producing, how quickly would they have been made, shipped, and put into service? How many would have even fit on a cargo ship for the long voyage across the Atlantic? How about the fuel - how much quicker would it have been to produce diesel vs standard? The Sherman was a marvel in that they could be built, shipped, and put into action in amazing numbers.

You see what I mean? You're absolutely right in that it was a hazard to the crews, but it served it's purpose and did it well. But hell yes, it must have sucked to be a tanker in a Sherman...

M16 - I agree with you there. Give me the AK. Still, the M16 is not at all the beast it's made out to be. It's an excellent weapon.

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

Sokrates -
Sorry, I'm still a goof when it comes to using the tools here so I'll quote you the old fashioned way :)

"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."

M16a3's are better in that regard, more importantly, the AMMO is better, but it still suffers more from misfires and issue than does an AK. The ammo does certainly have a lot less stopping power. The idea is though that it's more prone to hit the target to begin with, and more often. A 7.62 x 39 has more kinetic energy transferred to the target for sure, but if it's harder to HIT that target what good is it?

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

Mmm.. I'll give you that - the design wasn't the greatest in some respects but people are still missing my point - PART of it's success was the fact that it was produced, shipped and fielded in record numbers and in record time. Quantity has a quality all it's own, right? Plus, a big mistake that a lot of people make is thinking that a Sherman was designed for tank vs tank battles. WRONG. It's designed as an infantry support vehicle. The US fielded tank destroyers to take on German armor. Successful at that? Minimally but that was the intent.

And another thing - while it's understandable to think in Euro-centric terms, you also need to think globally - there was a war in the Pacific too, right? Well we had to ship tanks there too and they did very very well against anything the Japanese had.

"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"

Depends on which model of T-34 actually, but yes I agree. I love the T-34, but we didn't design the T-34, we designed the Sherman. Sure we could have taken our time, and slowly developed the "perfect" tank, but we didn't. When tanks were needed, we had one and we managed to ship thousands and they did the job they needed to do.

"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."

Better in every respect? I highly doubt that...lack radios for one thing.

"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."

Either share your source or the great drugs you're taking :P
j/k But that's not true at all.

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

Sokrates
Sokrates - all good points made, but I still disagree and here's why:


If you fart inside an enclosed space like a tank, your crew mates are much more likely to kill you than the fart by the way..

Shermans were a great success - US doctrine emphasized combined arms warfare. They were NOT intended to attack alone and without air or Arty support. They did and got smashed yes, but alternatively, if German armor was caught without Luftwaffe support and Allied airpower intervened, what happened? Yep, meat grinder. Does that mean German armor is crap? No, it means simply that they were caught in a predicament that they were not designed for.


No, it was absolutely not designed for tank vs tank combat - it was designed for infantry support which can include a variety of roles. The only US tank designed to specifically go head to head with other tanks was the M26 Pershing but that tank arrived very late.


Why the constant comparisons to the T34? The T34 is/was an excellent tank but the issue is "was the Sherman a piece of crap". I'm telling you why it wasn't, not how it compares to the T34.


Capitalist evil, lol I see. Nice theory but full of holes. The jeep was great, no? How many were made? sheesh.
Once again - the Sherman was not shite, it was a tank that was provided when needed in large numbers, & did it's job until something better came along.

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

Bloody hell, every time I come back to post, you have a novel waiting for me!

Ahh there's just no convincing you there Mr Sokrates, is there?

You hold your opinion I'll hold mine :)

how about a change of venue, aircraft - the Brewster Buffalo specifically - Americans HATED it, claimed that it was one of the worst fighters ever made, yet the Finns loved it and claimed that it was one of their favorite fighters..why?

Life / Beggers namely Kurwa boys in Poland [70]

I've seen quite a few beggars in Poland, but trust me, I'm convinced that NO place on earth is as bad as Detroit here in the US. The last time I was there, I could not walk for maybe 2 minutes without being asked for money over and over again. There were times when maybe 4 or 5 people would follow along all asking for cash. I like to be charitable and so on, but that's way out of hand!