My Education

Depending on what age you look at, I was either an arsine braggart, had very enlightened teachers, or was just lucky to be surfing the right educational theory that happened to be in vogue at the time.

I didn't enter kindergarten until I was six years old. I went to a private Catholic school, and while I remember very little about it now, looking at the progress reports my Mother kept, I pretty much already knew what kindergartners are supposed to know well before the year I spent there was up. I was however, one of those kids who got the "runs with scissors" NI (needs improvement). This demerit would be brought up by my parents for the remainder of my educational career. If something was wrong concerning my education, my parents would always point to this demerit as the early harbinger of my academic problems.

I pretty much breezed through my first year of grade school. By second grade however, I was placed in the "slow" class. The teacher was observant enough to pick up on the fact I wasn't "slow" but instead simply bored. I spent about a month in the slow class, before the principal decided to move me to the "normal" class. In a very short amount of time, I managed to wrack up an impressive month's worth of incomplete homework papers. My teacher decided something had to be done about it, and decided to bundle all of them up, with a note to my mother, explaining that I was going to be held behind if I didn't do my homework. I got in trouble when I pointed out to the teacher that I shouldn't have to do the homework because I already knew how to do all the problems on it. The teacher said homework was the most important part of school, and that I couldn't do well on tests if I didn't do my homework. I pointed out I always got "A" marks on my tests so what she was saying was incorrect.

Long story short, I ditched the homework in a drainage ditch, got in massive trouble, and couldn't sit for weeks. But at the end of the year, at the grade promotion conference, it was generally agreed that I was not a candidate for third grade. By some fluke of luck, my first grade teacher happened to get to put in some words in my favor, and I wound up being promoted over my second grade teacher's objections. 

Third grade started, and I was still doing the whole bit with homework never being done. Lucky for me I had a teacher who had just started her career, and had bought into the idea that homework and test scores should not be the only indicator of ability or mastery. She began taking me up on my challenge that I could do any problem or demonstrate mastery of a concept contained in my homework. And to her surprise she realized I really did know all the answers. I guess I impressed her enough so that she sent home some paperwork for my parents to read over. A short time after that I found out that she had advised my parents that instead of being slow, I was probably gifted and was just bored with the pace of a normal class.

My mother however, said it wasn't very likely that I was smart. She declined doing any testing, and pretty much told my teacher to mind her own business. My mother then tried to get my grandparents to send me to military school because she felt that since I was so slow and lazy, only a military school could offer me any chance of success. Thankfully, my grandparents never coughed up the money.

Anyway, I started fourth grade with a teacher who thought homework was everything, and simply assigned draconian amounts by anyone's standards. And as you can guess I was miserable. While I got A's on my tests, I got F's on my homework. Then a couple of lucky things happened. The first was we took a couple of nationally standardized tests. And in my grade, at my school, I achieved 99th percentile on the national scale, and was first in class on the local scale. Obviously something didn't jell with what I seemed to be able to do on tests, vs my middle of the road class rank at the time. My mother used the tests as an excuse to punish me for being lazy and lucky, telling me lazy people drive trucks and collect garbage when they grow up. My teacher supported my mother's observations, adding in that unless I could follow rules as a child, I would be unable to function as an adult.

Fate intervened, and my teacher suddenly caught cancer and left before Christmas.  I think she later died, but she was replaced by another teacher who was just starting her career. She decided to be my champion, I guess, and sent me to the school psychologist to see if there was a learning disability. As a result of the tests, the psychologist suspected that my family life was having a negative influence on my ability to perform, and suggested an IQ test to determine just how much I was capable of. There were a series of parent teacher conferences, where for some reason, my mother finally relented to me being tested.

I was eventually tested just before the school year ended and was found to be off the charts. Unfortunately for me, we moved to a new county, and a really crappy school system at the start of my fifth grade. My new teacher was in the ebb of her career and thought homework and Bible verse based lessons were the way to go. Fortunately for me, my records had been flagged by my fourth grade teacher and the new school system got around to sending out their psychologist to test gifted students. I missed one question, the definition of the word "espionage", and I only missed that one because I didn't understand how the question was phrased. Having tested off the charts, I pretty much found myself from that point on always being able to skip normal classwork/homework. 

By the end of fifth grade, I was performing at a college level or higher in everything but advanced math. Probably because I simply didn't like math. But pretty much from that time on I didn't do normal school work. I coasted through middle and high school. Once teachers realized I wasn't going to do homework, but would devourer massive projects, they pretty much gave up on giving me homework. The other thing which probably forced them to give up was that I could usually demonstrate more information and knowledge than they had on almost any subject. Basically, I spent the  next seven years doing whatever I wanted to academically, winning battles of will with stubborn teachers who thought that they would be the ones to finally force me to do homework, and doing my best to blend in with normal kids.

By the time I got to college, where no one cares if you do homework but grade you on tests, projects, and term papers, I was already far ahead of everyone else because that was all I had been doing for years.

What did teachers think about me? Most of them I have no clue. I suspect a fair number hated my guts. But there were more than a few who I made a pretty solid impression on, to the point that as my brothers later followed me in school they would find that my former teachers would contrast them with me. They never found them to have met my achievements and apparently had a bunch of stories to tell about me. I think a few were actually proud of me, my youngest brother, 17 years younger, told me that more than a few of his high school teachers had asked me if he was my brother and when he said "yes" was then told he had a pretty high standard to meet. 

But basically I spent the first four years of my academic career in the slow classes, mostly because of my refusal to do homework. I got really lucky with a couple of brand new teachers. Without them having come along when they did, I would have probably spent my entire academic career in the slow class being miserable. That's the ultra short version. 

Leia Mais…

German Industrial Tactics

Just some commentary I made over on AI Jane when I came across the most insipid thread I think I have ever read.

Taken from http://ai-jane.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=76380&highlight=#76380

As to German economics. The German state went from being the most damaged and hyper-inflationary economy in either Europe or the Western Hemisphere to being the only state which entered World War II fully recovered from the World Depression. The numbers are simply staggering in terms of first recovering from the Depression, then to growing in every single sector of the economy prior to the war. The supposition that Germany did not have a good economic model is totally abrogated by the factual performance of the economy, even before September 1939. To put it in perspective 1939 GDP performance of Greater Germany was only duplicated again in post war Germany 1952- and that is in spite of the fact that post war West Germany had 10 million more people and the GDP comparison is adjusted for territorial loses. 

Also astounding was the ability of the German economics during the war from September 1939 to May 1945. Unlike any of its adversaries, Germany did not even adopt a centralized war production management handled by the government until 1943. Despite this, Germany produced impressive gains in the military aspects of its economy- while still performing spectacularly in terms of civilian economic measures and benchmarks. The performance increases after 1943 were unequaled by even the Americans in terms of raw numbers and relative outputs. To say that the German war time economics were not efficient or functionally superior to its adversaries is inaccurate. Even at its greatest extent, Greater Germany still had only a fractional economic scale compared to its multiple enemies. Despite this, Germany managed to create one of the most efficient economic systems ever achieved during war time. The U.S.S.R., U.S.A., and Great Britain had vastly less able systems that compensated on the drawing of economic resources and scales afforded by vast land resources and colonial markets. 

As to the actual military, man for man in actual engagements they were literally off the charts compared to everyone else except the Fins, and were only surpassed in performance in modern times by the performance of the Israelis. The only thing that the Allies had going for them was shear numbers. Especially on the Soviet fronts and to a lesser extent on the U.S.A.fronts, Allied commander's willingness to accept casualty rates of four Allied soldiers per every one dead German speaks greatly to this advantage in numbers and deficiency in tactical planning. 

In terms of arms, the Germans were decades ahead of their enemies. Be it wire guided missiles, TV guided controlled bombs, propulsion systems, surface and sub-surface marine technology, rocketry, jet power, avionics, or even simple bombardment technology- the Germans had the best weapons. The only factors which limited the effectiveness was manpower shortages and the comparatively exposed and limited economic base. 

In most battles that the Germans lost, the deciding factor was always numbers of enemies. Be it Kursk or even the Marshes outside Berlin, the defeats in battle usually resulted directly from the effect of the Allies being absolutely willing to throw troops against German fronts until the Germans ran out of shells and ammunition. It didn't matter for example that in Kursk many German Tank Commanders racked up 20-30 killed opposing tanks. The result in that battle was that most tank crews eventually had to abandon fully functional tanks simply because they ran out of fuel and munitions while fighting. Even by their own admission, the Soviets after action reports on Kursk reveal that most German tanks were not actually defeated or destroyed by Soviet fire. Rather they were abandoned in extreme placement by the Germans. 

So again if you are saying the Germans were ineffectual or not even in the same class as its enemies in battle performance- you are woefully ignorant of the German's military condition. 

And we aren't even touching tactics and doctrine. And what is more frightening is the fact that the Germans did what they did, as effectively as they did, despite being the only combatant in Europe who relied almost exclusively on horse drawn supply trains. 

I could write, but won't write for hours on this subject. The noise ratio to content accuracy on this thread was just so bad that I wanted to point out that several of you are totally clueless and might want to do some research involving primary and secondary historical sources. These tertiary sources posted on this thread are essentially the equivalent of a grade schooler's introduction. 

God what a crap thread.

While there can, and by default, has been an argument put forward that the German weapons systems were ineffectual or worse, that argument rests on assumptions made upon post war political viewpoint. For various reasons, the post war Allies had a vested interest in offering detractions towards their former enemies in Europe while at the same time aggrandizing their own accomplishments. The main political reason for this was that the Allies needed to portray their efforts as ones that were entirely productive and inherently superior to the efforts of either Germany or Italy. This often flew in the face of both facts available as well as eye-witness accounts that were made by actual people who faced the German war machine and its lesser Axis co-belligerants. 

While the T-34 was indeed a very impressive tank in terms of basic design, its actual performance was individually best judged as one based upon opportunistic success rather than any particular merit inherent in its weapon system design. For example, much has been made about its performance against the "generic" German tank. And in such situations, yes the T-34 did very well. But like all statistical data, when you begin looking at what makes up the data, the details become examples of how misleading such claims really are. Against the Panzer Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV tanks, the T-34 was quite impressive in combat. As well it should, considering it outclassed these Panzers by massive degrees. For example the Mark III Panzers were almost exclusively tanks that had started out in the Czechoslovakian Armed forces, with chassis designed in the mid 1930's, with less than a 6" average armour thickness, and main guns running somewhere between 47-57mm bores. With the T-34 you had a chassis that was less than three years old technology wise, with an average armour thickness of 8", the armour was also sloped, and its main gun was 76mm in bore in most cases. 

In a head to head confrontation, you would hardly expect the lesser generic German tanks to last for even scant minutes. And while the T-34 did chalk up the majority of its kills against the lesser marks of the German tank fleet- the lesser German tanks managed to kill at least 1 T-34 for each 4 tanks the Germans lost. When you acknowledge that fact, the T-34 begins to look less like the superior weapons system it has been portrayed as. When you move up into the ranks of the production series that followed, including Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers the T-34 becomes almost a suicidal system for its crew. At Kursk for example, where there was a fractional component of Panthers and Tigers, the loss rate of Soviet armour against these German platforms were staggering. With a longer range of fire, better velocity of shell, and superior tactics, Panther and Tiger crews literally demolished T-34 forces. 

At Kursk, The German 9th Army fielded 600 lesser Mark tanks, i.e. Mark III and Mark IV. In addition they had another 200 tanks that would be best classified as field modified. or recovered combat vehicles of non-standard designs. They also held 100 Tiger tanks. Against this, General Rotmistrov had 900 tanks, the majority of which were T-34's to engage the Germans near Prokhorovka on July 12, 1943. It was a case of a centralized Soviet force made up of mostly front line standard tanks against a split German force made up of secondary line tanks. At the very least, one would have to assume that the advantage was entirely favored towards the Soviets. 

In terms of combat starting on the 12th and going into the 14th, the Germans had lost over 300 tanks by the end of the first day. The Soviets had lost a staggering 600. By the end of the 13th, the Soviets had lost another 150. However, by the end of that day the Germans had begun running out of ordinance for the tanks. As time went on through the 14th the Germans although now facing a force of approximately 150 functional Soviet tanks, and still having 600 functional tanks of their own to use simply ran out of fuel and ammo. Combined Soviet Partisan and Armoured forces report that commencing on the evening of the 14th and lasting for two days, nearly 600 German tanks were destroyed by ground troops using demolition charges. 

As it is commonly portrayed in history, nearly 1000 tanks met each other head on at Kursk. The popular history portrays a Soviet T-34 tank army meeting a German Tiger tank army and destroying 900+ while losing almost no Soviet tanks during the exchange. The reality however is that aside from some cherry picking gains on the first day, the Soviets were fundamentally ineffective against a numerically weaker foe fielding far less capable weapons systems. The fact remains that after the first 300 easy kills on day one followed by approximately 150 kills in combat on day two, the Soviets had managed to destroy only 450 German tanks vs the Germans having been able to destroy over 750 Soviet tanks- almost all of which were T-34s. The Soviet tactical victory only came after their enemy essentially ran out of fuel and shells. The T-34 based results amounted to only 450 kills, against a vastly inferior foe. While the Soviet ground troops managed 600 demolition kills against largely non-functional German tanks. 

Its not the popular view, but the reality was that in the greatest tank battle of all time, the T-34 emerged victorious only due to shear numbers and a far greater effectiveness of ground troops with satchel charges. While many routinely point out the superiority of the T-34 based upon this single battle, most overlook the reality that the T-34 performed very poorly in the only measure that matters- combat effectiveness. Of the 100 Tigers in the battle you ask? They averaged 17 kills a piece. And of the 60 Tigers that were lost only five were lost to tank on tank action. The remaining 55 were abandoned in place and lost to demolition charges. 

And that is just the case of the Soviet T-34 being popularly seen by people as an example of how superior Allied weapons systems were compared to Axis systems. The reality however is that these systems worked based upon a simple key factor- limitless supply. Similar performance can be seen with the American Sherman Tank- better known by its crews as "Ronsons" which refers to the Sherman's ability to go up in flames as reliably as the cigarette lighters made by Ronson in the 1940's. A common rule of thumb among Allied tank forces on the Western Front was that you had to have at least four Shermans before you considered taking on a Tiger. And you let the infantry take out any King Tiger. You would be correct in so far as the Ferdinand being a flop. But then they didn't even manage to make 90 of them. And at Kursk they performed extremely well- those that were destroyed were the result of infantry. But the Americans and British who latter faced them in Italy held them in great respect as adversaries. It would be more correct to say that the Ferdinand Tank Destroyer was a failure only in terms of how few of these weapons were built and deployed. Not because they were not effective weapons platforms. 

In terms of the experimental systems, like the V-2 for example, in order to declare them useless requires a massive degree of compartmentalization in terms of judgement. For example were it not for Speer and Heisenburgh jointly deciding to mothball and prevent a nuclear weapon during the last year of the war, the V-2 could have been- and should have been- the most lethal weapon available. For that matter had Speer decided to allow the paradigm shift towards a nuclear weapon- one which Germany was well advanced towards- the V-2 would have effectively stopped the Western Allies. As it was Antwerp and London might disagree with your assessment that the V-2 wasn't effective. It is only because Speer had a moment of humanity that prevented him from allowing a nuclear weapon to be developed, that the V-2 was prevented from reaching its full potential. 

And frankly the numbers of absolutely abysmal Allied weapons systems far outweighs the comparatively few ineffectual Axis systems. For example the British PIAT anti-tank weapon couldn't take out a canvas covered truck- yet they were made in the millions. The panzerschrek by comparison was almost always leathal when it hit its target yet only 15,000 were ever made. The Sten gun was a oft jamming, oft misfiring, and frequently broken weapon. Yet the Allies built millions of them. Compare that to the final Assault rifle variant the Germans came up with. The main difference between Allied failed and suspect weapons systems vs the German systems is almost always one of industrial production. 

For example the 90 Ferdinand tanks are popularly judged to be failures because they were too few in number to have had much of an effect upon the shear numbers arrayed against them. Yet the Sherman- is a success simply because of numbers alone. One on one I'd rather be in a Ferdinand tank destroyer than in any Allied tank. The issue isn't effectiveness but rather odds. If I am in a Ferdinand, aside from a direct assault from behind by infantry, I am almost invincible to attack and can kill anything that is terrestrial based and survive even an air assault. In a Sherman, Patton, Lee, T-34 etc.. I am unlikely to be able to singularly defeat any of my most likely opponents in combat. In mass numbers then I might have a shot. But be honest with yourself would you want to go into battle in something known as a "King Tiger" or a "Ronson"? 

The almost sole reason why Allied forces prevailed, is industrial numbers and a willingness to stick to evolutionary designs despite technical limitations. Why fix a Sherman tank's shortcomings if you can afford losing 4 Shermans to every one King Tiger you take out. You know there are around 1000 King Tigers and multiples of tens of thousands of Shermans. As long as you can afford to put crews in a Sherman, it doesn't matter how bad it is as a weapons system because shear numbers will eventually mathematically eliminate all the King Tigers. 

And such examples go on. But I am out of time

_________________

GDL

Leia Mais…

Is Islamic Terrorism a Threat?

I'd say that Islamic Terrorism is a threat to both your freedom and way of life. If you don't think it matters whether the Middle East- and other African and Asian countries- become wrapped up in Sharia based law or even a Caliphate developing under a Sunni ascendancy, then you are not being reasonable. That such a system could come into existence is not a far fetched possibility. In fact in historical terms, much of the Muslim world was unified under very geographically large and population dense governments. The dictatorships and military juntas that rule in Islamic states today are ripe for replacement having squandered decades of post-European colonial rule with economic, civic, and human rights abuses. By our standards, even the Islamic governments allied with the United States are dreadful examples of exactly how one should not rule a sovereign nation. If you think Islamic terrorism isn't an issue ponder the following.

Egypt's simmering civil war between western leaning politicians and the populist Islamic radical groups goes in the later's favor. How would international trade be effected if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt? What if they make good on their threat to close Suez travel to all non-Islamic flagged ships? What if they follow through on their threats to eliminate the Coptic Church? What if they follow through on their threat to destroy the "pagan" shrines of the Pharaohs? What if they do indeed gain control of Egypt? 

What will you do if Syria and Lebanon become unchecked tools for Iran? Do you think the terrorists backed by these countries should be allowed to attack Israel without concern from the USA?

Should we not be concerned over the very real possibility that terrorists are more than likely to take over all the Palestinian territories? Gaza seems to be doing rather well despite the fact that the rest of the world has turned it into a virtual pariah.

If Islamic terrorism isn't a big deal and no threat to the USA, we shouldn't be concerned with terrorist groups usurping Somalia, or leading genocidal exterminations of Christians in Sudan?

Of course none of this has any possible negative consequence for ourselves.

If you cannot grasp that Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan,& Philippines are part of an organic, coordinated, & methodical effort by Islamic terrorist groups to establish governments hostile to anything other than devout Sharia based Islamic rules- then there is no point in attempting to get your attention. Does it matter if such things come to pass?

It matters only if you think ideas such as the United Nations Charter on Human Rights are not just words on a piece of paper. If you do not hold such a view, then by all means adopt an isolationist view and leave the world beyond the United States fend for itself.

Leia Mais…