Meme I had to Show You

Pablo22510 · 2016-03-21T11:47:59.000Z

I found this meme, and I felt obliged to show it to you Rommel fans:

28 Mar 2016, 19:41

Well, we read different books

The past is a foreign country.

28 Mar 2016, 19:49

Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, we read different books

Mine are better tho.

28 Mar 2016, 19:54

Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, we read different books
Mine are better tho.

No way.

The past is a foreign country.

28 Mar 2016, 20:02

Pablo22510 wrote:
Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, we read different books
Mine are better tho.
No way.

Yahweh!

29 Mar 2016, 22:11

I'm not a big fan of Montgomery. Apparently, he was only brought into El Alamein because every other general had either resigned or been killed. Montgomery also said he wouldn't follow the plans laid out by the previous general (he wanted to do it his way), but ended up doing almost exactly the same way. El Alamein was also going to be won by the British anyways. It was a battle of attrition, and the Italians/Hitler were making Rommel lose. Patton was a better general (although a bit brash). Patton was a fast and hard hitting guy, while Monty was a slowpoke who took a lot of caution in advancing. It was due to their experiences in WWI (Montgomery experienced the attrition in the middle, Rommel the rush for land in the beginning, and Patton as the first successful tank commander in the end). They both had their ups and downs. But I honestly think Monty was an idiot.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

30 Mar 2016, 15:58

Kehsct wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Montgomery. Apparently, he was only brought into El Alamein because every other general had either resigned or been killed. Montgomery also said he wouldn't follow the plans laid out by the previous general (he wanted to do it his way), but ended up doing almost exactly the same way. El Alamein was also going to be won by the British anyways. It was a battle of attrition, and the Italians/Hitler were making Rommel lose. Patton was a better general (although a bit brash). Patton was a fast and hard hitting guy, while Monty was a slowpoke who took a lot of caution in advancing. It was due to their experiences in WWI (Montgomery experienced the attrition in the middle, Rommel the rush for land in the beginning, and Patton as the first successful tank commander in the end). They both had their ups and downs. But I honestly think Monty was an idiot.

We agree!

P.S. Rommel and Patton were the best generals of the war.

The past is a foreign country.

30 Mar 2016, 20:06

Pablo22510 wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Montgomery. Apparently, he was only brought into El Alamein because every other general had either resigned or been killed. Montgomery also said he wouldn't follow the plans laid out by the previous general (he wanted to do it his way), but ended up doing almost exactly the same way. El Alamein was also going to be won by the British anyways. It was a battle of attrition, and the Italians/Hitler were making Rommel lose. Patton was a better general (although a bit brash). Patton was a fast and hard hitting guy, while Monty was a slowpoke who took a lot of caution in advancing. It was due to their experiences in WWI (Montgomery experienced the attrition in the middle, Rommel the rush for land in the beginning, and Patton as the first successful tank commander in the end). They both had their ups and downs. But I honestly think Monty was an idiot.
We agree!
P.S. Rommel and Patton were the best generals of the war.

I agree so much. Too bad Patton and Rommel died before the war ended. Rommel to suicide, Patton to a drunk G.I. in a truck. Some think Patton may have been poisoned in the hospital though...

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

30 Mar 2016, 20:09

Kehsct wrote:
Some think Patton may have been poisoned in the hospital though...

Some people think there was WMD's in Iraq too.

30 Mar 2016, 20:14

Kehsct wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
I'm not a big fan of Montgomery. Apparently, he was only brought into El Alamein because every other general had either resigned or been killed. Montgomery also said he wouldn't follow the plans laid out by the previous general (he wanted to do it his way), but ended up doing almost exactly the same way. El Alamein was also going to be won by the British anyways. It was a battle of attrition, and the Italians/Hitler were making Rommel lose. Patton was a better general (although a bit brash). Patton was a fast and hard hitting guy, while Monty was a slowpoke who took a lot of caution in advancing. It was due to their experiences in WWI (Montgomery experienced the attrition in the middle, Rommel the rush for land in the beginning, and Patton as the first successful tank commander in the end). They both had their ups and downs. But I honestly think Monty was an idiot.
We agree!P.S. Rommel and Patton were the best generals of the war.
I agree so much. Too bad Patton and Rommel died before the war ended. Rommel to suicide, Patton to a drunk G.I. in a truck. Some think Patton may have been poisoned in the hospital though...

Yeah, apparently the OSS wanted him outta the way for agreeing with NAzis and saying Commies were bad, and they turned a blind eye to the NKVD killing him.

Quasi-duck wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
Some think Patton may have been poisoned in the hospital though...
Some people think there was WMD's in Iraq too.

I do.

The past is a foreign country.

30 Mar 2016, 20:15

Pablo22510 wrote:
I do.

Really? I heard they were under Bush's desk.

31 Mar 2016, 02:43

Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
I do.
Really? I heard they were under Bush's desk.

@Quasi-duck.....they were hidden away along with the key electoral results in Florida, all records of the Bushes being connected to funding Hitler, and the voice recorders on the "hijacked planes" which brought down the twin towers

31 Mar 2016, 02:51

Also, when it comes to British generals who don't have major screw-ups do point to, ***cough cough Market Garden***, lets look to one of the most underrated leaders of the war.....Percy Hobart

Not only did he defeat the Italians in North Africa despite being outnumbered 10 to 1(!!), he coordinated the development of the "Funnies," which greatly helped on D-Day, and saved countless British and Canadian lives, while the Americans, who refused help from the Funnies, had to have so many more good infantrymen die.

31 Mar 2016, 03:03

Liberinsula wrote:
while the Americans, who refused help from the Funnies, had to have so many more good infantrymen die.

Hey, we had Omaha beach. Omaha (like Market Garden), was the result of bad luck and faulty intelligence. Most of the special Sherman's made for water crossing on D-Day for Omaha, sank in the waves there.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

31 Mar 2016, 12:13

Kehsct wrote:
Most of the special Sherman's made for water crossing on D-Day for Omaha, sank in the waves there.

The Yanks used a different kind of Sherman. Rather than the Duplex Drive, of which they had very few and launched too far out, they had a few with snorkels which were not very good either.

1 Apr 2016, 02:02

Quasi-duck wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
Most of the special Sherman's made for water crossing on D-Day for Omaha, sank in the waves there.
The Yanks used a different kind of Sherman. Rather than the Duplex Drive, of which they had very few and launched too far out, they had a few with snorkels which were not very good either.

Everyone failed in making an amphibious tank in WW2. The Duplex Drives did work, but that was when the boat captains were courageous enough to get closer.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

1 Apr 2016, 13:34

Kehsct wrote:
Everyone failed in making an amphibious tank in WW2.

That is incorrect. The Brits did well and so did the Japs.

Kehsct wrote:
The Duplex Drives did work, but that was when the boat captains were courageous enough to get closer.

Worked fine on British and Canadian beaches.

2 Apr 2016, 02:59

Quasi-duck wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
Everyone failed in making an amphibious tank in WW2.
That is incorrect. The Brits did well and so did the Japs.
Kehsct wrote:
The Duplex Drives did work, but that was when the boat captains were courageous enough to get closer.
Worked fine on British and Canadian beaches.

Give me a link to the British and Japanese tanks. And yes, we all know the Americans failed so much at D-Day. Unlike the British at Caen...

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

2 Apr 2016, 05:04

The Americans were simply in foolish in launching the Sherman DDs too far away from shore. And even without the innovative amphibious tanks, the Brits still saved the Americans thorough providing accurate air support to US Army Rangers tasked with taking out German coastal artillery.

2 Apr 2016, 10:32

Kehsct wrote:
Give me a link to the British and Japanese tanks.

You can look up the DD yourself, you should know it was a British innovation on the American Sherman. The Japanese one was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_Ka-Mi

2 Apr 2016, 17:27

Quasi-duck wrote:
Kehsct wrote:
Give me a link to the British and Japanese tanks.
You can look up the DD yourself, you should know it was a British innovation on the American Sherman. The Japanese one was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_2_Ka-Mi

A: The Japanese tanks were never used in an amphibious landing. B: The Sherman tank was an American tank. The British just made another variant.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

Post a Reply

70 Replies

Post a Reply