Heinrich Severloh The beast of Omaha

ANSWER: In a manner of speaking yes, in that each would operate, be used and do approximately the same kinds of things. Your reasoning, or more properly, the lack of reasoning, in the context you wish to assert, is not consistent with the real world. Inequality is the rule in the natural world, remember Darwin said "Survival of the fittest.", not "Survival of the equal."

 

Oh, ask him a tough question...

Everyone knows that Severloh was much closer to his targets than all of the other MG-34/MG-42 gunners. Therefore, his MG-42 karbiner kugelblitzer stovepipe thing-a-ma-jig will be much more effective. The following scientific video will show you that this is true.

And now, he added knowingly, the scientific video...

 

Yep, survival of the fittest...

 

My Mennonite granny, if she were alive, would say that the reason you fellas keep loosing the argument, is because you keep insisting building your "arguments" on something that is not true.

 

Having all those men a night, she must have been quite happy.

 

There you go, making slanderous statements about a person you have absolutely no knowledge of. If she had been your Granny, She would have taught you that a lie of COMMISSION (Saying something with 0 fact.) will get you into Hell. You are not the only guilty person. Really popular among your type are lies of OMMISSION or saying something which contains truth, they just leave out the part which shows it to be a lie. And there is the lie of INFERENCE, meaning what is said is true, but it is used to infer something that is a lie. That's why your type always gets it wrong.

 

No, I think he's saying Lance Severloh used his Defense Lance to defend his true faith against the infidel Yankees who wanted to besmirch the honor of his Granny...or some other neo-Nazi claptrap. However, since I hate American Nazis more than most other varieties, I think I'm done with this one.

 

Good riddance! It is no fun to deal with people who try to conceal their lack of knowledge with nasty remarks and bad behavior.

 

Lack of knowledge? Please specify a source for your idiotic rendition of German into English. Please specify which Heeres Druckvorschriften specify the tactical and doctrinal use of the MG 42 you have fantasized. Please specify the evidence you have for the U.S. Army concealing the thousands of additional casualties you claim were incurred on D-Day. Please specify the evidence you have for the thousands of additional soldiers landed in order to incur those casualties. Please specify the evidence you have for veterans describing a "Beast of OMAHA" in the 1950's. Please specify where Severloh describes having eight replacement barrels. Please specify what sources you have used, other than your imagination and your personal experience plinking at tin cans, for the description of events you have concocted.

And please do not use your sainted granny as a source.

 

[QUOTE="shooterike, post: 809343, member: 40080 " If she had been your Granny, She would have taught you that a lie of COMMISSION (Saying something with 0 fact.) will get you into Hell. [/QUOTE]

As Rich pointed out in his last post, it appears that it is you who have furnished 0 facts. Ol' Granny probably taught you that it gets hot down there--don't worry about bringing a coat.

 

Here are a few of my interesting sources:
Pi.F Pionier - Fibel von Oberleutnant Zahn Verlag "Offene Worter" Berlin
REIBERT DerDienst - Unterricht im Heere von Dr. Iur W. Reibert
Gr Die (neue) Gruppe von Major a.D Bodo Zimmerman
H.Dv 130/2a Ausbildungsvorschrift fur Die Infanterie Heft 2a der Schuessenkompanie
H.Dv 130/3a Ausbildungsvorschrift fur Die Infanterie Heft 3a der Machengewehrkompanie
H.Dv 220/3a Ausbildungsvorschrift fur Die Pioniere Fahren auf dem waffe

For the answers to your other questions, as you did not pay attention in class, you must go back and review all that has been taught.

 

As Rich pointed out in his last post, it appears that it is you who have furnished 0 facts. Ol' Granny probably taught you that it gets hot down there--don't worry about bringing a coat.[/QUOTE]

I have supplied very many facts, I fear you lack the intelligence to understand them.

 

Why is the most guilty the first to accuse and abuse?
I know the drill--when you can't back up anything you say you distract, distort, claim fake information (that cannot be verified), use alternative facts, change the subject or get insulting or personal.

I do believe you know more about the workings of a machine gun than I could ever (or want to) learn. I have gleaned a lot of information from everyone's post including yours, but you have not furnished one source of information to answer Rich's questions in post #210.

 

I thank you for your complements on my machinegun expertise. But as to your comment concerning Rich's questions in post #210, I am new at this and do not computer speak well. I do not how to access post 210. Rich, whoever he is, I do not consider knowledgeable. He makes nasty remarks and whishes to warp what I said into something else and demand a pre determined answer by a leading question. We are not in court, where I have been an "expert witness" and where leading questions may only be ask of hostile witnesses. We are on a public forum and I will give an appropriate and truthful, as I believe the truth to be, answer. I do not care what their opinion of that answer is. I have repeatedly said that much of my knowledge was obtained from anonymous German soldiers. They may not like that as a source, I do. They like to play fast and loose with what they consider to be "TRUE". I will not play that game. For example, some silly person, keeps demanding that I "prove" Severloh had more than 1 spare barrel, using as his "authority" some nameless source where "Severloh said he only had 1 spare barrel", and that "proves" that I am a "liar because I said he had 8". Then he will cite the same "authority" to prove that "Severloh is a liar" because Severloh said this or that and it is a lie. Which is it? If the authority he cites is factual in the first instance, what makes it a lie in the second? As I asked several of the self proclaimed "experts" I have been dealing with where I can find that factual/lie authority they like to cite? No response, so I consider it to be "fake news".

 

I need to apologize, I should have said RichTO90, and post #210, which is about six posts back (this should be post #216 in this thread)
The two questions I am most interested in, is where you got the information that the official records
For casualties on Omaha beach on D-Day were falsified, and also the inflated numbers of the invading force. There are records that the casualties incurred in England ( Slapton Sands) during an invasion exercise, where a German vessel sunk an LST, was kept secret until after the war, but have never seen anything like this regarding the June 6th invasion on Omaha Beach.
Thanks.

 

Don't give him too much credit. He has obviously tinkered with German machineguns but obviously doesn't have a clue as to the characteristics of machineguns and their optimal employment. The characteristics of their fire and the physics, ballistics and physical factors behind those characteristics. If you plink a few rounds at a six inch triangle from 100 yards on a known distance range you don't need to know these things. If you're employing a machinegun on the battlefield and engaging humans and vehicles at varying ranges from 0-1500 meters or so and expending hundreds and thousands of rounds it is important to know these things.

He dismisses RichTO90 who is one of the most knowledgeable people on the ETO I've ever had the pleasure to interact with. He always, including this thread provides detailed information and the primary sources where this material was obtained. He's the gold standard. Rich has actually provided the actual casualties of all the units that Severloh could have possibly engaged, and he just ignores the data, or claims it's first news. RichTO90 is a published author on D-Day (and other) subjects.

The first individual he attacked was Sheldrake in post#12; "You obviously do not know anything Go and study a whole lot and then come back to talk with the big boys when you know a little bit."

If he'd clicked on the links below Sheldrake's signature he'd know his assessment was inaccurate. Sheldrake further demonstrated his intellect by not allowing himself to be dragged further into this goat rope.

That person would be Takao, and he is not silly. In fact if you'd spent a little time perusing the forums before you started attacking individuals you'd know he is a very knowledgeable member and backs his statements up with sources. He has provided you with what Severloh stated in posts #182 and #185. If you didn't attack him and just inquired politely he'd tell you exactly where the quotes came from, instead you accuse him of lying.

 

You idiot...

If she was my Granny, I never would have mentioned it in the first place. Unless my grandmother had some bearing on the topic at hand.
Your Granny has no bearing what-so-ever on a thread about Severloh...Unless, Severloh was one of her men-a-nite.

She obviously taught you how to lie...and taught you well, I may add.

Have fun playing with the fire and brimstone, like you did with your "machinguns."

Yep...You are standing on the pedestal marked "1st Place Liar."

You mean like your lies of OMISSION concerning Severloh?

You mean INFERRING that Severloh was some kind of uberGerman marksman with the MG-42, and all of the other MG gunners defending Omaha Beach could not hit the broadside of a barn at 5 paces? Not to mention that all of the other German riflemen, mortarmen, artillerymen, AA gunners, could also not hit the broadside of a barn at 5 paces.

Or, do you mean INFERRING that Severloh was somehow resposible for the majority of the casualties that occurred at Omaha Beach, despite the fact that he defended only a small portion of it.

Or, do you mean INFERRING that the American government conspired to hide tens of thousands of casualties at Omaha Beach.

Oh, lookie at that Shooterike. Looks like you arre just the type that always gets it wrong.

 

Well, it has been barrels of fun dealing with your nasty remarks and lack of knowledge.

I guess it is simply a matter of different strokes for different folks...

Anyway,

 

I think you are referring to one of RichTO90's phantasies. He likes to take a thing said in one context and warp it into a different context with a leading question and an obnoxious attitude and pretend that he is judge, jury and executioner. That kind of thing does not work with me. Someone so foolish to try it with me will be handed his figure-of-speechative head, which I will do until they get the idea that it is best not do it. That being said, I do recall a post I made concerning questionable government records and Union Civil War losses at the battle of Cold Harbor, wherein I related an incident of an old lady who could find no trace of her great grandfather excepting some letters her grandmother had given her, which were fairly numerous before Cold Harbor and non existent after it. I did some pro bono work for her and discovered that according to the "Official Record", her great grandfather had been mustered out of service with an "Honorable" discharge, a few miles from his home in 1865. Why did he not return home? The letters he wrote to her great grandmother were full of love and hope that the war would be over soon and he could return to his family, but he never made it home. Later, I found out that several others had had the same kind of thing happen when trying to locate a Union soldier. The thing they had in common, Cold Harbor, was a replay of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, except the Yankees were the suicide troops and there about three times as many of them. The interesting part is this: Both kamikaze charges supposedly produced EXACTLY the same number of casualties! Approximately 7,000 men.Think about it. Bobby Lee's men had more time and better fortifications. Grant sent in nearly three times as many men. By the same logic, Union losses should be about 20,000 men?
I will pass on another mystery of which I know very little about and concerns WW2: My mother employed a seamstress whose husband disappeared near the end of WW2. As she told the story, he had written her a letter which stated that he had been told that his ship (he was in the navy) would be returning to the States and he would be discharged upon arrival. This made her very happy. Unfortunately, the happiness did not last as the days turned into weeks and the weeks turned into months. She said that a Navy officer came to her home one day and told her that her husband had died and gave her some official papers. There was no funeral as there was no body. About a year after that, a second man, not in uniform, came to her house and told her that her late husband had been on one of 5 ships that had disappeared at the end of the war. That is the short and the long of what she told me.