PDA

View Full Version : History Channel


whoman69
04-18-2005, 06:45 PM
Good night of viewing on the history channel. At 7 pm C there is a repeat of the special on Hitler's secret to Mein Kampf that was never published because it was a military plan for Germany to rule the world. Following at 8 pm C is the conclusion to their documentary on FDR.

badgirl
04-18-2005, 06:47 PM
Good night of viewing on the history channel. At 7 pm C there is a repeat of the special on Hitler's secret to Mein Kampf that was never published because it was a military plan for Germany to rule the world. Following at 8 pm C is the conclusion to their documentary on FDR.
The history channel is great, I like it discovery, A&E, Court TV are my favorites.

Rain Man
04-18-2005, 07:48 PM
I might have to check this out.

Frazod
04-18-2005, 07:56 PM
I'm watching it. Interesting show. When I get home and turn on the TV, HC is generally the first thing I check out.

Although I must admit I'm starting to tire of the "Modern Marvels" series. What's next - the history of the lug nut? :shake:

I wish they'd stick more to wars and blowing shit up. :D

Rain Man
04-18-2005, 08:02 PM
I wish they'd stick more to wars and blowing shit up. :D


An all WWII channel would be all right by me.


As an aside, I had a commie pinko college history professor who refused to mention wars in his class. He said that they "got too much attention." So we'd be cruising along and it'd be 1914, and then all of a sudden he'd skip four years and start talking about 1918. What a putz. One of the worst profs I ever had, both in terms of teaching philosophy and teaching mechanics.

Jenson71
04-18-2005, 08:04 PM
An all WWII channel would be all right by me.


As an aside, I had a commie pinko college history professor who refused to mention wars in his class. He said that they "got too much attention." So we'd be cruising along and it'd be 1914, and then all of a sudden he'd skip four years and start talking about 1918. What a putz. One of the worst profs I ever had, both in terms of teaching philosophy and teaching mechanics.

ROFL

keg in kc
04-18-2005, 08:59 PM
I had a college history professor named Dr. Butt.

Seriously.

He was great, though. One of the best teachers I've ever had. I really wish I'd taken advantage of more Honors classes, my Religion and Ethics prof was great, too. Ahh, wasted youth. :shake:

Ultra Peanut
04-18-2005, 09:11 PM
An all WWII channel would be all right by me.I think there already is one. It's called the "History Channel."

/watched some Band of Brothers on there last week; glad they apparently only edited out the f-bomb.

ck_IN
04-18-2005, 09:39 PM
There's also the military chanel. Too bad Directv doesn't carry it on my plan :cuss:

Ultra Peanut
04-18-2005, 10:48 PM
There's also the military chanel. Too bad Directv doesn't carry it on my plan :cuss:That used to be Discovery Wings. Guess that didn't work out.

Simplex3
04-18-2005, 10:54 PM
I wish they'd stick more to wars and blowing shit up. :D

Ah, you need the "Military Channel"! We just had that show up on Everest a couple of months ago.

Frazod
04-18-2005, 10:56 PM
Ah, you need the "Military Channel"! We just had that show up on Everest a couple of months ago.

That's not included in my DTV package. I pay those f#ckers enough.

beavis
04-18-2005, 11:08 PM
Am I the only one who has see Band of Brothers no less than 10 times, but still watches it everytime it's on?

Woodrow Call
04-18-2005, 11:09 PM
Am I the only one who has see Band of Brothers no less than 10 times, but still watches it everytime it's on?

I am the same way. I can watch Band of Brothers over and over again.

Skip Towne
04-18-2005, 11:11 PM
That's not included in my DTV package. I pay those f#ckers enough.
Apparently not quite enough.

Uncle_Ted
04-18-2005, 11:13 PM
Am I the only one who has see Band of Brothers no less than 10 times, but still watches it everytime it's on?

Nope. Me too. Absolutely addictive.

Frazod
04-18-2005, 11:16 PM
Nope. Me too. Absolutely addictive.

Same here. I watched most of the episodes that aired over the last few days, and I have the DVD set downstairs.

Never gets old. What an amazing series.

Ninjaman
04-18-2005, 11:49 PM
The history channels show on WWII sherman tanks was good.

Sherman tanks = ***T. Those guys were outgunned and it took 2 or 3 U.S tanks to take out a German tank using a plan of encircling the enemy and hitting their tank from behind. The German guy they said their tanks were better but there were too many Shermans.

Amnorix
04-19-2005, 08:10 AM
The history channels show on WWII sherman tanks was good.

Sherman tanks = ***T. Those guys were outgunned and it took 2 or 3 U.S tanks to take out a German tank using a plan of encircling the enemy and hitting their tank from behind. The German guy they said their tanks were better but there were too many Shermans.

Not even close. German tanks were considerably superior. The Tiger, especially, had some serious drawbacks in terms of logistics and support, but was easily king of the battlefield. But the Russians were cranking out T-34s and the Americans Shermans in far, FAR superior numbers.

Here's a good site:

1943 Tank Production:

Soviet T-34 (a tank better than anything the Americans had): 15,820

American Sherman M4: 21,231


German Panzer III, IV, Panthers, Tigers (Total): about 12,000 (and I'm being generous in counting some platforms that might not normally be considered as basic tanks).

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-world-war-ii-topics

Other reasons why the Axis lost the war:

1943 Aircraft Production (all types):

UK: 26,263
US: 85,895
USSR: 34,900

Total Allies: 147,058

Germany: 15,409
Japan: 8,861

Total Axis: 24,270


1944 was 163,079 to 68,773.

Skip Towne
04-19-2005, 08:16 AM
Not even close. German tanks were considerably superior. The Tiger, especially, had some serious drawbacks in terms of logistics and support, but was easily king of the battlefield. But the Russians were cranking out T-34s and the Americans Shermans in far, FAR superior numbers.

Here's a good site:

1943 Tank Production:

Soviet T-34 (a tank better than anything the Americans had): 15,820

American Sherman M4: 21,231


German Panzer III, IV, Panthers, Tigers (Total): about 12,000 (and I'm being generous in counting some platforms that might not normally be considered as basic tanks).

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-world-war-ii-topics

Other reasons why the Axis lost the war:

1943 Aircraft Production (all types):

UK: 26,263
US: 85,895
USSR: 34,900

Total Allies: 147,058

Germany: 15,409
Japan: 8,861

Total Axis: 24,270


1944 was 163,079 to 68,773.
Germany didn't run out of planes. They ran out of pilots. The US rotated their pilots back home to train more pilots but Germany didn't and so ran out.

Amnorix
04-19-2005, 08:21 AM
Germany didn't run out of planes. They ran out of pilots. The US rotated their pilots back home to train more pilots but Germany didn't and so ran out.

Pilots were a problem, but the nature of this changed over time:

1. During the Battle of Britain, German planes that were shot down over England or the Channel tended to either die or be captured by the Brits. UK pilots, of course, either died (or were injured) or landed safely and were available to fly again. The Luftwaffe's tremendous losses in the 1940 timeframe were as much or more from lost pilots as the planes themselves.

2. Later in the war, German pilots were more frequently recovered because they were fighting over continental Europe.

3. I do agree that German policy regarding pilot training might not have been the best. It doesn't really matter, though, the Germans could never have matched Allied aircraft construction levels.

beavis
04-19-2005, 09:12 AM
Same here. I watched most of the episodes that aired over the last few days, and I have the DVD set downstairs.

Never gets old. What an amazing series.
My favorite parts are still the opening segments with the real guys. For some reason, I can't change the channel when they are talking.

whoman69
04-19-2005, 12:05 PM
Not even close. German tanks were considerably superior. The Tiger, especially, had some serious drawbacks in terms of logistics and support, but was easily king of the battlefield. But the Russians were cranking out T-34s and the Americans Shermans in far, FAR superior numbers.

Here's a good site:

1943 Tank Production:

Soviet T-34 (a tank better than anything the Americans had): 15,820

American Sherman M4: 21,231


German Panzer III, IV, Panthers, Tigers (Total): about 12,000 (and I'm being generous in counting some platforms that might not normally be considered as basic tanks).

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-world-war-ii-topics

Other reasons why the Axis lost the war:

1943 Aircraft Production (all types):

UK: 26,263
US: 85,895
USSR: 34,900

Total Allies: 147,058

Germany: 15,409
Japan: 8,861

Total Axis: 24,270


1944 was 163,079 to 68,773.
Overall the Sherman was produced 10x more than the Tiger. The US also developed a heavy tank near the end of the war called the Pershing I believe. She was produced in quantities for one year what the Germans were able to produce for the entire war for Tigers.

Coach
04-19-2005, 12:37 PM
Interesting show this morning about Russia, the land of Czars.

Rausch
04-19-2005, 12:45 PM
Good night of viewing on the history channel. At 7 pm C there is a repeat of the special on Hitler's secret to Mein Kampf that was never published because it was a military plan for Germany to rule the world. Following at 8 pm C is the conclusion to their documentary on FDR.

I'm also looking forward to the FDR flick on HBO. Looks to have good acting and some "before he was the man" background...

whoman69
04-19-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm also looking forward to the FDR flick on HBO. Looks to have good acting and some "before he was the man" background...
I thought it portrayed too much of the negative. They spent about the last five minutes saying he was a great president. They also thought he should have used his political capital to turn to civil rights. With the depression still on high and a world war looming that nobody wanted us to get into, he needed to keep his strength to get the military back into shape and to keep the lines with England open. If he had gone after civil rights at that time, its not assured he could have even been succcessful. He would have kissed lend/lease goodbye and our new isolationist president of 1940, Wendall Wilkie, had never held office and would have been commander in chief at a time when the Japanese demanded we surrender our pacific bases including Pearl Harbor, to the Japanese. We would not have gone to war until Germany had pacified Europe and Hitler had completed his fleet of long range bombers and a fleet of battleships larger than the Bismark. As the President, you have to know what battles you need to fight, and what battles you can win.