Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
Sorry guys - thanks for playing but you need to look at all three guides and you havent.
The Soviet Vehicle Guide that has the strengths of the Soviet Units in Iran as of July 1, 2000 show the same numbers of men and tanks that are in the RDF guide for Jan 1, 2001
if it says a unit has 18 tanks in the Soviet Guide for July 1, 2000 it shows that same unit with 18 AFV in the Jan 1, 2001 entry for the same unit in the RDF
Thus an AFV, as defined by Frank, is a tank, not an armored car, not a Bradley, a tank.
The Soviet numbers in the July 2000 guide match man for man, AFV for tank to the Jan 1, 2001 numbers in the RDF
That is conclusive proof that what Frank Frey is saying is an AFV is what the author of the Soviet Vehicle Guide and the US Vehicle Guide is saying is a tank.
And there is no reduction of Soviet tank numbers to match the 35 tanks as to captured tanks.
Thus we have CONCLUSIVE CANON PROOF OF A SHIPMENT OF TANKS AND HELOS TO THE RDF FROM GERMANY.
You can spin it all you want but its right there, clear as crystal, black and white in the three guides
If you put them together you have 35 tanks and 18 helos show up with the 6000 men from Germany.
Thus there was a second convoy, that took men, heavy equipment and aircraft from the Germany to the RDF.
Oh and the ships may have gone thru the Med and docked in Israel if the canal is closed. Those ships woudl thus not be in the RDF area of operations. The men and equipment then could have gone to a Jordanian or Israeli Red Sea port and gone around the peninsula or come overland - and used a lot less oil for the ships.
Sorry - but its canon guys.
So either you change canon and reduced those units or acknowledge we were right - the second convoy wasnt part of Omega, in fact it may have even left earlier (i.e. the V Corps units that were already in Bremerhaven when Omega started)
You have to wonder - if the order had just been issued what was the V Corps doing already in Bremerhaven -
Answer: They were being shipped to the RDF.
Now you can argue if you want - but the fact is that such a shipment or men and equipment occurred and its canon
So Leg - are you saying that we should ignore or change canon because it doesnt fit your view of the timeline?
|
This is exactly the opposite of what I was talking about, Olefin. "Thanks for playing..." I understand that Internet land encourages us to develop bad habits in terms of our communication with fellow posters. We don't do that here, with the exception of one or two in whom we're still trying to encourage development.
Everyone appreciates a newcomer with new information, a new outlook, and new work to share. Very few appreciate a newcomer with attitude, which is why you may have read others remarking about breaking into a tight-knit group. Try soft-shoeing a bit more, Olefin. Presentation really does matter. Your ideas will be just as good and just as salable presented under the banner of "I have a counterargument" as "Thanks for playing."
If you want another example, look at Kato's reply: brief, factual, and neutral.
You did good work by identifying some room for playing with the numbers in the RDF and cross-referencing other sources. That is commendable, and that is why I accepted your friend request. The flipness and the representation of raised voices, etc. are offputting.
You have a good point about the way some posters cling to canon. Again, your use of the reference materials is praiseworthy. I strongly recommend that you not use few posters who rigidly cling to canon or who prefer a rougher and more confrontational style of interaction act as your role models. Kato and Raellus are good models for how the majority of us prefer to do business. People listen to them. People don't listen so much to those posters who prefer a style of interaction resembling barstool philosophy. That latter group may post frequently, but their arguments are given short shrift compared to the arguments put forth by guys like Kato and Raellus, or Targan.
Give it some thought. I'm not discussing the merit of your argument here. I'm discussing how ideas are presented--particularly rebuttals to the rebuttals of others. There's a reason why folks wear suits when they appear in court or give a dissertation.