Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Green Tag

About egilen

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. Ok, thx. Steady as a dream yesterday. Can`t stay in game today... ?
  2. CTHL twice in a couple of min... Whats the message 10057 mean ?
  3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have just recieved a copy. lots of photos and tech info. Main text in Norwegian, but as the photos represents the main contents of the book and they have English/Norwegian text, it is no problem. Recommended.
  4. Fishing from a wheeled vehicle ? They are fishing from tracked vehicles going flat out across the lakes up there...
  5. Some links.
  6. "The best pilot of WW2 ?" Probably an unknown test pilot going through an endless stream of prototypes, test mules and their like. On which side ? Impossible to tell... Or maybe an unsung hero in a struggling C-46 going over the "Hump".... Or maybe the unknown british pilot flying Molotov back home from London in June 1942... Or maybe..
  7. Source; "The other price of Hitlers war." M.K.Sorge. Wehrmacht losses in the West June 6.44 to Jan. 31.45; 66 321 killed/died by wounds. Losses in the West Sept. 1.39 to Jan. 31.45; 107 042 excluding death by wounds. Have then in mind that for every death there was 2,5 seriously wounded. As for POW`s in the West June -44 end of May -45; 5 480 367. In the period June -44 out March -45; 977671. Just to give some numbers. I am sure there are others out there...
  8. Interesting discussion. I will merely point out that the theories and sources were known prior to 1990. The Austrian Ernst Topitsch was out before Suvorov in 1985;"Stalins Krieg" and Suvorov himself came out in 1989; "Der Eisbrecher". There are as this above discussion have shown two conflicting views on the reasons for the war in the East. We have the traditional view based on Hitlers "Mein Kampf" writings, with its "lebensraum" claim and later evolving economic/military considerations. All well and truly documented. Then comes the view with Stalins as the agressive part, more or less "forcing" the issue of war upon Hitler. A view first mentioned in German propaganda during the war and culminating through authors like Topisch and Suvorov. As for my own view ? The offensive was the backbone of Russian strategic thinking in the prewar/war era. The idea was to "find and destroy the enemy in his own territory". With this in mind and the "forward" stance of the deployed USSR forces in 1941 in mind, Hitler as a "reacting" element seems reasonable. On the other hand, the extensive reforms and modernisation/training under way in 1941, make it hard to believe this was a force ready for agressive warfare in July 1941. A massive rearmament programme was under way from the late 1930`s, but so was the case for the major players in the rest of Europe as well. (Even little Norway bought/built a little tank at the end of the thirties) Until some heavy sources can verify that Stalin had some clear offensive objectives in mind with Europe in this timesphere, I personally tend to swing toward Hitler as the agressor and Stalin as the "reactive" part. The idea of the invasion of the USSR as a pre-emptive strike by Hitler, are not accepted by most of the authors/historians I have so far come across as well. Glantz foremost among them. The defector Suvorov with his "flying and motorway tanks" theories I find more amusing than serious. That man had an agenda, despite his convictive literature abilities.
  9. I would guess a 7,5 cm. Geb G36 in the process of beeing set up or dismantled