gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The SS operated a frequent rotation policy with the concentration camps, for obvious reasons, so knowledge about what was going on was widespread throughout the organisation imo.Ducado said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
25th October The Battle of Agincourt..
- Thread starter BlueHammer85
- Start date
Quite correct, the Germans got the shock of their lives when they came up against the Russians esp the Guards Tank ArmyDucado said:blue underpants said:They actually thought we were good on the defense and holding our ground but lacking in tactics on the attack, this all changed with the appointment of Monty to the Desert Rats and he gave Rommel a chasing across the desert.manclad said:I don't think that being afraid of the British army was something that the Wehrmact had ever even considered in 1940.(Although they did respect the bravery and fighting prowess of the individual Tommy).
The S.S. had no regard for the British soldier whatsoever at the beginning, but after Arnhem they regarded the Paratroop Regiment as almost their equal, im talking about the Waffen (Armed) S.S. not the twats in the camps, this was not unusual for the S.S. though as they regarded everybody with a hint of contempt
The Germans had a particular arrogance about them which was OK whilst it was going well, but when the tide turned especially in Russia they soon changed
Don't give that bullshit that the Waffen SS were any different than the camp guards they were picked out of the same group, you did not get in without solid Nazi credentials, it's another topic that one anyway
The S.S. debate is one that will rage on and on with veterans of the Waffen S.S. even today saying they wanted nothing to do with the Allgemine S.S. who they say they regarded as utter scoundrels and cowards...or so they say but like you say thats another debate
blue underpants said:Not really read up om Poitiers bit of a forgotten battle that, but is that where we were getting our arses kicked then some noble relation to Henry came to the fore and rallied the troops and turned the battle?
I am going to sit down tonight and read up on it
There's a very good account of the battle in Cornwell's latest book about Thomas Hookton(a fictional archer)
The French knights were invulnerable to our arrows, and they armoured the front of their horses, which made them invulnerable too. After a few volleys were the arrows either snapped or just bounced off them. The archers quickly repositioned and attacked from the side, the horses had no armour on the sides and were quickly brought down.
Once again we were vastly outnumbered but not only prevailed, we also captured the French King, 17 Lords, 13 Counts, 5 Viscounts, over a hundred knights and 2000 men. They also has 2500 dead or wounded, Our casualties were estimated at a few hundred.
Rings a bell now, it was on that history of the 100yrs war a few months ago, but wern't the cavalary Italian mercenaries with some kind of impregnable armour, think they were Genoese or somethingstony said:blue underpants said:Not really read up om Poitiers bit of a forgotten battle that, but is that where we were getting our arses kicked then some noble relation to Henry came to the fore and rallied the troops and turned the battle?
I am going to sit down tonight and read up on it
There's a very good account of the battle in Cornwell's latest book about Thomas Hookton(a fictional archer)
The French knights were invulnerable to our arrows, and they armoured the front of their horses, which made them invulnerable too. After a few volleys were the arrows either snapped or just bounced off them. The archers quickly repositioned and attacked from the side, the horses had no armour on the sides and were quickly brought down.
Once again we were vastly outnumbered but not only prevailed, we also captured the French King, 17 Lords, 13 Counts, 5 Viscounts, over a hundred knights and 2000 men. They also has 2500 dead or wounded, Our casualties were estimated at a few hundred.
nelsons willie
Well-Known Member
Kenneth Branagh isn't the best Shakespearian actor. In truth he's p*ss poor. Got the roles because he was half decent looking and was having a relationship with Emma Thompson who is a very good actress.
Best one for this scene is Olivier (1944).[/quote]
Excellent film, my favourite bit is when he asks for more porridge.
Best one for this scene is Olivier (1944).[/quote]
Excellent film, my favourite bit is when he asks for more porridge.
blue underpants said:Rings a bell now, it was on that history of the 100yrs war a few months ago, but wern't the cavalary Italian mercenaries with some kind of impregnable armour, think they were Genoese or somethingstony said:blue underpants said:Not really read up om Poitiers bit of a forgotten battle that, but is that where we were getting our arses kicked then some noble relation to Henry came to the fore and rallied the troops and turned the battle?
I am going to sit down tonight and read up on it
There's a very good account of the battle in Cornwell's latest book about Thomas Hookton(a fictional archer)
The French knights were invulnerable to our arrows, and they armoured the front of their horses, which made them invulnerable too. After a few volleys were the arrows either snapped or just bounced off them. The archers quickly repositioned and attacked from the side, the horses had no armour on the sides and were quickly brought down.
Once again we were vastly outnumbered but not only prevailed, we also captured the French King, 17 Lords, 13 Counts, 5 Viscounts, over a hundred knights and 2000 men. They also has 2500 dead or wounded, Our casualties were estimated at a few hundred.
Not sure, I know we had Gascon infantry and the French had a contingent of Scots fighting for them.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Even back then, they were supporting anyone who was up against England.stony said:the French had a contingent of Scots fighting for them.
gordondaviesmoustache said:Even back then, they were supporting anyone who was up against England.stony said:the French had a contingent of Scots fighting for them.
They went home unhappy, as per usual ;-)
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
After predicting outright victory beforehand, no doubt ;-)stony said:gordondaviesmoustache said:Even back then, they were supporting anyone who was up against England.stony said:the French had a contingent of Scots fighting for them.
They went home unhappy, as per usual ;-)
gordondaviesmoustache said:After predicting outright victory beforehand, no doubt ;-)stony said:gordondaviesmoustache said:Even back then, they were supporting anyone who was up against England.
They went home unhappy, as per usual ;-)
They haven't changed. I think a few of them were sporting Valderrama wigs.