PDA

View Full Version : Why the Luftwaffe couldn't defend Germany



Vacillator
03-22-2005, 08:41 AM
Now I know! It was because one man jumping around various gun turrets in an early B17 test bombing mission shot down all of their Bf109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif .
It must be true, I just did it in Call of Duty United Offensive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .
If it wasn't so lame, my sides would be splitting. Now I'm aware that CoD doesn't pretend to be a simulator, just a game but hey, something in the realms of actual possibility would be nice.
It did however make me think that a flyable B17 would be nice...which is my attempt to avoid justified exclamations of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif.

Waldo.Pepper
03-22-2005, 09:02 AM
Because there is no perfect defence, and an imperfect defence can always be overwhelmed.

CAPT_COTTON
03-22-2005, 09:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
Planes cant win a war the groundpounder wins a war and the germans were being pounded from every dirction and in the end they were not defending just trying to live thru it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

darkhorizon11
03-22-2005, 07:20 PM
Its because Chuck Yeager Flash Gordon and Jimmy Doolittle were teamed forces and were shooting down like 50 planes per mission. The Kaiser's planes weren't fast enough to catch them in their Mustangs.

Mercifully it was over quick!

LBR_W.Zellot
03-22-2005, 09:30 PM
Have you ever played H&D 2?
In a mission about 20 *wing cannon armed* JG27 109's attack a lone escaping Ju-88 in the desert canyons, and they don't just fail in their mission to destroy the defecting Ju, but get shot down.

Gunners won the war yay \o/

civildog
03-22-2005, 10:07 PM
Because we had John Wayne and Gregory Peck and all the Germans had were a bunch of British actors with bad accents pretending to be Germans.

If they were lucky sometimes the Germans would get some lanky dispeptic looking guy with a scar on his cheek to scream "Schweinhund!" a lot to fly their planes, but usually he died in the end just to show how good The Duke was at the stick.

StG77_Stuka
03-22-2005, 10:10 PM
I watched a friend play that CoD mission, thought it was pretty cool myself. Watching B-17s get blown apart and crew members falling out. Or his ability to move through the plane from tailgunner to the cockpit manually opening bombay doors when they jammed, cutting the fuel to burning engines. Other than his ability to shoot down around 60 109s in 10 to 15 minutes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, I found it kind of exciting, he said he thought I would being a "WWII flight sim buff", chuckle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

ClnlSandersLite
03-23-2005, 01:45 AM
Don't forget Tom Cruise! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Artic_Wulf
03-23-2005, 03:42 AM
Hitler is still loathed and despised today because WW II happened only a Generation ago.
There are many blood thirsty tyrants down through history.
500 years from now he will still be known as a blood thirsty Tyrant and a butcher, like Vlad the Impaler etc, however he will also be known as the last of the great adventurers, and is already being refered too as such in some historical circles.
He will be known thus because he was the very last World leader who was able to wage conventional warfare on such a Scale with out destroying our planet along the way.

The rise and the Fall of the Third Riech, was the rise and fall of an empire over a shorter time scale than is normaly seen over Earths history.
All the ingedients where there, the stunning early successes, that led to over confidence and an expanded war that was never originaly planned for.
That was their down fall, The Luftwaffe was equiped to win a war on the continent quickly and efficently with out the conflict degenerating into the trench warfare of WW 1.

Blitzkreig was a stunning success, the War in Europe was as good as over in the early 1940s, and America was still not involved.

It does not take much to change History however and over confidence in those early successes was their down fall.
The Luftwaffe was never designed or equiped as a strategic bombing arm.

It is always easy to be wise as we have the benefit of Hindsight, you have to remember back then everybody involved in the war was making history.
The strategic air campaign against Germany was as new an idea as was the Blitzkreig concept of war fare back then.

Billy_BigBoy
03-23-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
Because we had John Wayne and Gregory Peck and all the Germans had were a bunch of British actors with bad accents pretending to be Germans.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
And don't forget Michael Caine and Christopher Plummer!

mothyp
03-23-2005, 06:53 AM
Adolf lost his empire and his life because he didnt learn from a recent historical event

namely Boneapart invading russia and look what happend to him!

and please dont forget a whole raft of fine British actors who won the BoB

and what about micheal caines black dog?

and edward fox or how about lex luthor playing a polish Airbourne soldier?

mothyp
03-23-2005, 06:55 AM
i forgot to add it was always hitlers plan to invade russia, but decided that the western europe might notice if he did it and might get a little shirty, thats why he invaded France.

Jasko76
03-23-2005, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mothyp:
i forgot to add it was always hitlers plan to invade russia, but decided that the western europe might notice if he did it and might get a little shirty, thats why he invaded France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All along I thought he hated France for defeating them in WWI, for making them sign the hated Versailles Treaty, for hundreds of years of hostilities between what was to become Germany and France...

Silly me!

Bearcat99
03-23-2005, 08:09 AM
Because the German leadership at the top were a bunch of egomaniacal idiots tactically. If thhe Generals had been given more latitude or thier advice listened to by Hitler & Goering the war could have been much different.... perhaps Germany would have still lost events would have gone much differently.

Vacillator
03-23-2005, 09:52 AM
Thanks guys for good historical answers.
Now about Call of Duty... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

CAPT_COTTON
03-23-2005, 10:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
You MEAN we were talking about call of duty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
03-23-2005, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Artic_Wulf:
Hitler is still loathed and despised today because WW II happened only a Generation ago.
There are many blood thirsty tyrants down through history.
500 years from now he will still be known as a blood thirsty Tyrant and a butcher, like Vlad the Impaler etc, however he will also be known as the last of the great adventurers, and is already being refered too as such in some historical circles.
He will be known thus because he was the very last World leader who was able to wage conventional warfare on such a Scale with out destroying our planet along the way.

The rise and the Fall of the Third Riech, was the rise and fall of an empire over a shorter time scale than is normaly seen over Earths history.
All the ingedients where there, the stunning early successes, that led to over confidence and an expanded war that was never originaly planned for.
That was their down fall, The Luftwaffe was equiped to win a war on the continent quickly and efficently with out the conflict degenerating into the trench warfare of WW 1.

Blitzkreig was a stunning success, the War in Europe was as good as over in the early 1940s, and America was still not involved.

It does not take much to change History however and over confidence in those early successes was their down fall.
The Luftwaffe was never designed or equiped as a strategic bombing arm.

It is always easy to be wise as we have the benefit of Hindsight, you have to remember back then everybody involved in the war was making history.
The strategic air campaign against Germany was as new an idea as was the Blitzkreig concept of war fare back then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hitler didnt travel much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

civildog
03-23-2005, 11:47 AM
I see really three basic reasons why the Germans would never win, in general
and the Luftwaffe in particular. No doubt this will cause a storm and
flurry of rants but so be it, someone around here needs to have the ******
to tell the truth.

1) The Germans had a lousy soundtrack.

You just can't fight a war and win listening to the WW2 era equivalent of
Goth. Lili Marlene is nice, especially with the long-legged Blue Angel
singing it to you while wearing stiletto-heeled jackboots and smoking a
black cheroot in some dark cabaret, but it's a pretty depressing song
really. The Wagnerian bluster works only while you are strafing Poles
fleeing from your Stuka otherwise it's just distracting. Same with all
those spiffy marching songs: the Panzerlied works only while your chasing
Frenchmen across the Maginot Line or rolling across North Africa until some
skinny guy in a tommypot holding a cane pops up and spoils the party.

And by the time the Germans were trying to unfreeze their posteriors from
the mud around Stalingrad all the poor guys had to listen to were the nasal
shriekings of a twisted little gnome in Berlin telling all the world what a
great Christmas the troops were having that year defeating the untermensch.
Yeah, that must have really caused some dissonance in the poor guys.

On the Allies side we had the boogie-woogie sounds of big time swing. Any
corn-fed farmboy from Iowa, scrappy stickball tough guy from Brooklyn, or
Cockney brawler from the Thames could really kick some serious Jerry rear
up one side of France and down the other knowing they the Andrews Sisters to
go home to. And Glenn Miller's "American Patrol" coming out of your
headphones would be enough to make any propjockey a Chuck Yeager. Even the
Russians had some serious heavyweight tunes in the form of al those
"Workers-Kill-the -Fascists!" songs. And the weepy gypsy music was perfect
background for partisans everywhere.

2) The Germans always shot all the good generals.

Everytime the Germans found some really gret general too whoop the Allies in
a last ditch battle the poor guy is hamstrung by politics and then fails.
The evil guy in the leather trenchcoat and fedora then steps in and says
with a knowing sneer, "You haff failed der Fuerher for der last time, Herr
Oberstleutnant!", which only tells the audience that it was all a setup
anyway.

Just look what they did to Rommel. And Robert DeNiro in "The Eagle has
Landed"!

Eventually the snake ate it's tale and that was that.

3) Too many wacky schemes gone wrong.

The Germans couldn't pull off a secret mission to save their bratwurst from
a blind dachshund. Other than rescuing Mussolini the German commando was
useless. They were always getting throw away in cockamamie schemes to
kidnap Churchill or find the Holy Grail. And they always failed for the
same reasons the general who planned the operation would then get shot for
later.

Look how the Allies did it! You want to kill some Nazi general or wipe out
his entire command? Just round up a dozen psychopaths from Death Row to
airdrop behind enemy lines and turn them lose with enough firepower to level
a South American weekend government and more pardons than the Nixon
Administration for the survivors. Do it again in a couple sequels and round
it off with some assorted misfits to blow up various guns, bridges, and
ships and the war is over before you can say "Gott im Himmel!" It didn't
matter if Charles Bronson looked like everything the Nazis tried to wipe
out, stick him in an SS uniform and drop him behind enemy lines and it's
just crazy enough to work!


So there is my thesis. I dare any of you to dispute it. I have an entire
DVD and video collection of references that say I right so anything else is
twaddle.

Von_Zero
03-23-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Artic_Wulf:
a blood thirsty Tyrant and a butcher, like Vlad the Impaler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
please, be so kind and learn some history, then come here and compare Vlad "Tepes", with a moron like Hitler, ok? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

ClnlSandersLite
03-23-2005, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hitler is still loathed and despised today because WW II happened only a Generation ago. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try 3 generations ago. 2005-1945 = 60. 60/20 = 3.

It's true that there are people still alive from "1 generation ago", but there are still people that actually fought in it. That does not make it this generation.

To put it in perspective: I'm 21 (easily old enough to have a kid). My GREAT grandfather fought in WW2. He was a British commando (that side of the family is british) and won the victoria cross (among others). He died about 15 years ago, his wife about a year ago. My father has my great grandfathers war collection upstairs, medals, a few trophy bayonets, his own bayonet, his camera (one of those old kodak brown boxes), etc.

My neighbor, a veteren of the pacific (USMC infantry, division unknown), died just about a year ago as well. Sad, I don't think his story is preserved...

civildog
03-23-2005, 12:03 PM
For some reason I thought this was a "serious" discussion? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ClnlSandersLite
03-23-2005, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I see really three basic reasons why the Germans would never win, in general
and the Luftwaffe in particular. No doubt this will cause a storm and
flurry of rants but so be it, someone around here needs to have the ******
to tell the truth.

1) The Germans had a lousy soundtrack.

You just can't fight a war and win listening to the WW2 era equivalent of
Goth. Lili Marlene is nice, especially with the long-legged Blue Angel
singing it to you while wearing stiletto-heeled jackboots and smoking a
black cheroot in some dark cabaret, but it's a pretty depressing song
really. The Wagnerian bluster works only while you are strafing Poles
fleeing from your Stuka otherwise it's just distracting. Same with all
those spiffy marching songs: the Panzerlied works only while your chasing
Frenchmen across the Maginot Line or rolling across North Africa until some
skinny guy in a tommypot holding a cane pops up and spoils the party.

And by the time the Germans were trying to unfreeze their posteriors from
the mud around Stalingrad all the poor guys had to listen to were the nasal
shriekings of a twisted little gnome in Berlin telling all the world what a
great Christmas the troops were having that year defeating the untermensch.
Yeah, that must have really caused some dissonance in the poor guys.

On the Allies side we had the boogie-woogie sounds of big time swing. Any
corn-fed farmboy from Iowa, scrappy stickball tough guy from Brooklyn, or
Cockney brawler from the Thames could really kick some serious Jerry rear
up one side of France and down the other knowing they the Andrews Sisters to
go home to. And Glenn Miller's "American Patrol" coming out of your
headphones would be enough to make any propjockey a Chuck Yeager. Even the
Russians had some serious heavyweight tunes in the form of al those
"Workers-Kill-the -Fascists!" songs. And the weepy gypsy music was perfect
background for partisans everywhere.

2) The Germans always shot all the good generals.

Everytime the Germans found some really gret general too whoop the Allies in
a last ditch battle the poor guy is hamstrung by politics and then fails.
The evil guy in the leather trenchcoat and fedora then steps in and says
with a knowing sneer, "You haff failed der Fuerher for der last time, Herr
Oberstleutnant!", which only tells the audience that it was all a setup
anyway.

Just look what they did to Rommel. And Robert DeNiro in "The Eagle has
Landed"!

Eventually the snake ate it's tale and that was that.

3) Too many wacky schemes gone wrong.

The Germans couldn't pull off a secret mission to save their bratwurst from
a blind dachshund. Other than rescuing Mussolini the German commando was
useless. They were always getting throw away in cockamamie schemes to
kidnap Churchill or find the Holy Grail. And they always failed for the
same reasons the general who planned the operation would then get shot for
later.

Look how the Allies did it! You want to kill some Nazi general or wipe out
his entire command? Just round up a dozen psychopaths from Death Row to
airdrop behind enemy lines and turn them lose with enough firepower to level
a South American weekend government and more pardons than the Nixon
Administration for the survivors. Do it again in a couple sequels and round
it off with some assorted misfits to blow up various guns, bridges, and
ships and the war is over before you can say "Gott im Himmel!" It didn't
matter if Charles Bronson looked like everything the Nazis tried to wipe
out, stick him in an SS uniform and drop him behind enemy lines and it's
just crazy enough to work!


So there is my thesis. I dare any of you to dispute it. I have an entire
DVD and video collection of references that say I right so anything else is
twaddle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, according to you: the Empire had a fighting chance?

1: Kick *** sound track.

2: Yeah, they killed a few captains and admirals, but they didn't seem all that impressive in the first place.

3: The empire managed to build the death star without the rebellion knowing about it not once but twice.

So, How'd the rebels win? Especially in only 3 movies when it took the allies several movies even with those advantages?

civildog
03-23-2005, 10:23 PM
The rebels had the Force. Plus the Underdog Factor.

The Underdog Factor is the most important rule of winning ANYTHING. Rocky had it, the Brits had it in the Battle of Britain, the Rebel Alliance had it, sometimes even the Germans had it.

The Factor works like this: you get your @@s kicked all over the first two thirds, or maybe even 3/4's of the conflict while the enemy gets to sneer and laugh maniacally. Gets the fancy uniforms, flashy weapons, and all the good looking babes.

But then the Underdog Factor kicks in. Something important to the good guys gets destroyed, or they lose someone important to the cause...not just an important leader, it needs to be someone with emotional importance. And then the hero gets a certain gleam in his eye as the Factor pours adrenaline, courage, and rightous anger into his heart (or hers). As a result the enemy senses this and hesitates, makes a fatal error by giving away too much info in a long speech, or allows someone to escape so they can follow them to thier secret base.

Then it's all over: everyone roots for the underdog hero while he guns down the Prussian fighter ace who taunted him with the flaming deaths of his mates. They root for him while he makes a desperate run on the enemy superweapon defenses and saves the universe (see, the Empire built two deathstars, but the rebels still found out about them and blew them up with ridiculous ease).

I'm sure there is a mathematical proof to plot the existence of this factor. Something involving the proportion of weakness on the part of the good guys vs the strength of the bad guys. The strength of the bad guys would be reduced over time by the inverse of their badness while the strength and resolve of the good guys would increase to the inverse of the same bad guy badness.

*** It's important to note that while the Germans sometimes had a slight amount of Underdogness about them, this was mostly a result of the Peterson Intervention so it could still not overcome the initial level of badness****

So you can see that by this model the bad guys, no matter how cool their uniforms are, powerful their weapons are, or how many of them there are they just will never win because their badness works against them at the same time as it works for the good guys!

And that's why the Empire could never have won.

civildog
03-23-2005, 10:33 PM
And about the soundtrack: remember what I said about the tracks the Germans were using. They were great until they started to lose here and there in seemingly insignificant battles. But once that started the tracks started to sound overblown; almost mocking the once mighty war machine.

The Empire may have had the best march in the second movie, but the main opening theme of the entire series is still the one used by the rebellion. And it sounds good no matter what happens. It can be speeded up to build tension, slowed down to express mood, blasted out at full force to motivate the rightous anger of the underdog rebels.

The Empire's March can only work one way. And like the "Ride of the Valkyrie" it only works when you are attacking and winning. Once you start to lose it begins to sound like the farting laughter of the punctured lead balloon of once-greatness.

Artic_Wulf
03-24-2005, 12:26 AM
Surprisingly enough guys and gals, Fact can be stranger than Fiction.
When you look at Earths History, the Third Riech probably represents the most Evil empire that has ever existed.
Most of the top men in administration of the Riech defy description when it comes to trying to describe their sheer cruelty,and Sadistic way they administered the State, some of them even had their Sanity put into question by the Allies at wars end.

At the enforcing end of the state they had employed people as heartless and inhumane as themselves to ensure policy was carried out.
It was as if a gate from Hell had opened.

Before I gather my children Israel together again in one place as a Nation .... I will not leave them altogether un punished...

The Good Lord was not kidding when he said that eh!

Yes indeed somtimes Truth can be stranger than Fiction.

A Happy and Joyouse Easter to all of you!

mothyp
03-24-2005, 06:46 AM
old joe and his cronies were'nt particularily nice either, they did their fair share of evil deeds but had a much bigger/wider border in which to conceal it.

btw i love CoD online

and i still think it was micheal caines dog in BoB that was a major factor in the Allies winnning the war his manouevre at the battle of pelinor field was the single most brilliant stoke a canine general has ever pulled off, especially as at the time he was cleaning his genitaila.

and how could the rebellion loose with that theme tune, that bit when luke says red 5going in just before the trench run very stirring stuff, i agree if old herman had that playing in his JGs when they went into battle it could have been so different

mothyp
03-24-2005, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mothyp:
i forgot to add it was always hitlers plan to invade russia, but decided that the western europe might notice if he did it and might get a little shirty, thats why he invaded France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All along I thought he hated France for defeating them in WWI, for making them sign the hated Versailles Treaty, for hundreds of years of hostilities between what was to become Germany and France...

Silly me! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no he just had a migraine that day and wanted to take it out on someone!

panther3485
03-24-2005, 08:23 AM
THE GENERATION GAP????

(for everyone's interest only, and to perhaps add another perspective.....)

How many years are there between generations?
It's definitely not as many as 60, but I think that 20 could be going a bit too far the other way.

Well, I guess to some extent it does depend on what part of the World you live in and what period of history we are talking about, but for the context of this discussion we should be looking at 'Western' countries after 1945.

Of course, if you think in terms of when we become CAPABLE of reproduction, and measure only from a couple's first child, then a generation wouldn't be any more than 15 years tops, because nearly everyone is biologically capable before their 15th birthday! This would make it 4 generations since the end of WW2!

Perhaps more realistically, we should look at the age people in Western countries have, on average:
(a) Produced their first child, and
(b) been producing ALL their children
in the years since WW2. We know that there are teenage pregnancies, and always have been. We also see people continuing to have children well into middle age. What we are interested in is the AVERAGE.

And... these figures have changed quite a lot since the mid 20th Century!

My Parents' generation were the young men and women, the 'cannon-fodder', of WW2. Typically, their Mothers were between 19 and 23 when they got married, but Fathers often tended to be older, usually between 24 and 28 on average. Large families were common and many kids grew up with anything from 4 to 6 siblings. Even if Mum was 20 or 21 when YOU were born, she could easily be middle aged when she had your last brother or sister.

Shortly after WW2, when my parents got married, they tended to do so around the same age as their parents did and started having kids around the same age as well, but they were going to have fewer of them. (Usually, they would have 2, 3 or 4.) But most things had been the same for them as for their parents. You could have started working a full-time man's job (but for junior wages) at the age of 14, gone away and fought in the War as young as 17 or 18, but you were not legally Adult, or allowed to vote in elections, until 21. If your intended bride was under 21, you needed her Father's permission to marry. But on average, parents would be 22-26 at the birth of their first child and 31-35 for the last.

Then we look at my generation, the so-called 'baby boomers', the first generation to be raised in the realtive 'good times', the decade or so following WW2. By the time most of us got to be 20, the age of legal adulthood wasn't 21 any more, it was 18. We usually had 1, 2 or 3 children and we tended to have them in our mid to late 20's, on average. Due to improvements in education and other conditions, most of us had not begun full time work until 15 or 16 at the earliest, many later.

My children's generation, now mostly in their mid 20's - early 30's, are starting to make their mark on the World. Most stayed at school until they were 17 or 18, many continuing in education after that age. Generally, they became legal adults BEFORE becoming fully functioning members of society. And what is the average age at which they start a family?
Here in Australia, the average age for FIRST TIME motherhood for women is between 28 and 29. I suspect it is now similar in most Western countries. Couples will typically have 1 or 2 children, and have them in their 30's.

So.... how big is the generation gap?

I reckon, 25 years is a reasonably accurate MINIMUM AVERAGE.

Based on this, WW2 should be seen to be a bit more than two generations back, but not three.

Apologies for the long-winded waffle - hope somebody found some useful thoughts in it.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

Artic_Wulf
03-24-2005, 02:31 PM
Panther, I was once instructed that a good measure of A Generation of man, is the time span that elapsed between... the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, and his death on the Cross at Golgotha out side of Jeruselum 33 years later.

That is not far off your estimate, I guess they chose his physical life span as the bench mark because he was the son of the being that created us.

panther3485
03-24-2005, 05:42 PM
Hi Artic_Wulf,

Yeah, that's another interesting idea.

I guess the point I was trying to make is, its not the age you CAN have children that counts. It's the age you DO have them. AFAIK, JC didn't have any, but apparently that's the subject of some controversy right now!

Another point I was trying to get across is, we need to look at averages rather than individual cases. My first child was born when I was 26 but my last was born when I was 41 (he's 10 now), but I was divorced and remarried, so that complicates things. Other members of my generation who are somewhat older than me, have eldest children who are now in their early 30's and some of those haven't had THEIR kids yet!

Nevertheless, my 10 year old son has a grandfather who fought in WW2 - a Normandy veteran - and he will be turning 80 this year! He's still very much alive, very active and recently started learning computers!

I think you and I are pretty much in the same ball park with our estimates.

Best regards,
panther3485

ClnlSandersLite
03-24-2005, 06:38 PM
Bieng 21, I've had lots of friends/acquaintences of similar age who have had children.

Anyways, I did some searching around for a semi-official answer and this is what I found the most:
"Either: 25 years, 40 years, or 70 years {that's strictly according to the Bible- ONE generation is described differently at different times}"

25 years seems to be the most accepted in the western world. Probably due to biblical references.

So, 2.4 generations....

Lav69
03-24-2005, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vacillator:
Now I know! It was because one man jumping around various gun turrets in an early B17 test bombing mission shot down all of their Bf109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif .
It must be true, I just did it in Call of Duty United Offensive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .
If it wasn't so lame, my sides would be splitting. Now I'm aware that CoD doesn't pretend to be a simulator, just a game but hey, something in the realms of actual possibility would be nice.
It did however make me think that a flyable B17 would be nice...which is my attempt to avoid justified exclamations of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can you say HIJACKED...

Takata_
03-24-2005, 07:48 PM
Lav69, I agree 100%

back to serious topic: the number used in ethnological research, calculated from large populations, taking into acount the parents/children average age is rounded at 30 yrs per generation ; 4 generations every 120 years.

This has nothing to see with JC crucifixion but with common women reproduction range from 15 to 45 with 30 in the middle. Weird, this figure is roughly the same over centuries from neolithical ages. ie: if women get children earlier in the past, their husband were older than today and the average is barely constant.

Only genetical engeenering may change that if more and more 60's people get kids in the future. At that point, we'll face the real dark side of the force and start to understand why Luftwaffe was unable to defend germany dispite the cool uniforms.

On the other hand, we don't have to underestimate the already mentioned "underdog factor" as well as the "now, powerfull gun/ammo switch". This undocumented feature of so called good side will make the difference at the end.

Remember how many ammo it tooks to bring down one loosy parasite until our mighty troopers hit the switch and capture the thinking one!

S~!
Takata

p1ngu666
03-24-2005, 09:13 PM
worrying thing about population going up, is that we are running out of resources to support them... heck many go hungry now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif due too food not being equaly shared http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

aprently, if the average chinaman or woman consumes, polutes etc as much as the average american, the world will go Nu Huh. their just isnt the resources in the world todo that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

btw im not picking on americans, just they consume way more things than a peasent farmer somewhere, just the way it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

panther3485
03-26-2005, 02:18 AM
I reckon you'd have to be pretty close to the money there, Takata.

Average parental age for a couple's FIRST child in Western countries (taking the age of BOTH partners into account), since WW2, was close to 25 for both my parents' generation and for mine. But there has been massive social change in Western countries, especially since the 60's and 70's.

Using the above criteria, the average age for first-time parenthood TODAY is around 30. That's a five-year upward trend in just one or two generations. And that's despite the apparent increase in teenage pregnancies, because people are, on average, leaving it longer before starting their families.

And this is NOT taking into account the parents' ages for second and subsequent children, if they have them.

The reproductive life of a healthy woman in the West starts, as you say, from about 15 (possibly earlier in some cases) and can extend into her early 50's (though very few yet want to do it that late, and the risks increase greatly).

With improvements in education, medicine, nutrituion and living standards and with people living longer and women starting families later, there may be pressure to extend reproductive life by whatever means are available - indeed, there is already evidence of this trend beginning.

Who knows what the future may hold?

Best regards to all,
panther3485

NorrisMcWhirter
03-26-2005, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
worrying thing about population going up, is that we are running out of resources to support them... heck many go hungry now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif due too food not being equaly shared http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

aprently, if the average chinaman or woman consumes, polutes etc as much as the average american, the world will go Nu Huh. their just isnt the resources in the world todo that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

btw im not picking on americans, just they consume way more things than a peasent farmer somewhere, just the way it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give them their due, Americans are now switching to buying more fuel efficient cars. That could have happened 10 years ago but I suppose that if I was paying the same amount for a gallon of petrol as someone in the UK was paying for a litre, then I might not be overly concerned about whether my car did 15 miles to the gallon or 40.

TBH, I don't think it's going to be too long before China, the next single economic superpower, will be consuming resources faster than anyone else. It seems that Opec used to tailor their oil prices so as to maintain a happy medium between keeping economies growing and their own profit. With certain oil consuming countries now seeing almost double digit growth, that measured approach seems to have gone out of the window.

Norris

Takata_
03-26-2005, 01:06 PM
S~! panther3485

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panther3485:
(..) the average age for first-time parenthood TODAY is around 30. That's a five-year upward trend in just one or two generations.
(..)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This change for the first parenthood is something funny in some way because two generations before, it was the first of 3 to 5 average children per family.

Now the western countries tendency is closing to only one around 30 yrs. That means if you take ALL the kids and parents average age, the calculated generation number is close to be the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panther3485:
(..)
And this is NOT taking into account the parents' ages for second and subsequent children, if they have them.
(..)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my point of view, all the childrens from the same parents belongs to the same generation, even if one is born 20+ yrs after the first one.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best regards,
Takata

civildog
03-26-2005, 02:00 PM
Pluck and Cool...exactly, as best exhibited by the British in nearly every campaign. Even the infamous Bridge too Far operation which has the Germans winning a Pyhrric victory over the coolest British commander under fire in any battle. Anyone who will walk out on a brideg with a hunting bugle and face a Panzergrenadier unit with nothing but a cane is pretty cool.

In the face of that the initial German counter attack was thouroughly demoalized and failed. Later the Germans were reduced to leveling the area with heavy artillery in order to overcome the lasting effects of the above mentioned Bad Guy Shooting Academy (most excellent point FlatSpinMan - it's a constant mystery as to why they learn to shoot that way but it helps explain why there are always so many more Bad Guys than Good Guys most of the time!) and because their rank troops were clearly demoralized in the face of the ultimate plcuk under fire.

We must also give a nod to the beleaguered Poles who also exhibited pluck and cool in the face of overwhelming odds fighting the Grrrmans in that battle (the Polish pronounciation according at that time, possibly was an attempt by the counterintel wienies to add authenticity and throw off any German spies who wouldn't know who the heck Hackman was talking about).

Obviously the Germans failed once again to learn the lessons from their thorough spanking at the hands of a few British pilots led by Michael Caine (and his dog) in the Battle of Britain.

panther3485
03-26-2005, 10:38 PM
Hi Takata_,

Yes, good points but I think perhaps we may not yet have fully understood each other.

Yes, it is true that couples today on average have their first child later, but have fewer of them, so if the 'generation gap' is taken from the MIDDLE of their child bearing years, it does indeed come out much the same on average, that is, around 30-33.

Problem is, many readers seem to think in terms of the birth of the FIRST child only and measure the generational interval from that child, whithout taking account of the rest, so that part of my post was more for their benefit than yours.

Next point -

Quote: "From my point of view, all the children from the same parents belong to the same generation, even if one is born 20+ years after the first one."

Yes, Takata_, that's obviously true in a strictly GENETIC sense. Trouble is, if we use that as our only yardstick, we can run into problems when we consider the question that started all this.

Genetically, there is a continuous flow of 'generations' and generations easily can, and often do, overlap. Some families have had children as far as 30+ years apart, but even at 20+ years, you can finish up with Uncles and Aunts being YOUNGER than their Nephews and Nieces!

Add to that, particularly since the 60's and 70's, the exponential increase in the number of divorces, remarriages, de-facto relationships and blended families. Things can get very messy and complicated, with the distinction between 'genetic generations' becoming further blurred.

On this basis alone, then, there is no consistently reliable or readily identifiable boundary between one and the next. This is why, when we consider historical questions, we tend to think in historical terms to 'define' a generation.

For example, we may speak of 'The Generation that fought WW2'. What we usually mean is the young men and women who did most of the fighting and the dying, the majority of whom were in their late teens and early-to-mid 20's, as were MY parents. But, in reality, the age range for participants was much broader and they came from a number of the above-mentioned 'genetic' generations.

Another way to explain this is the fact that some service personnel participated in BOTH world wars, and some familes with children spaced very widely apart had their oldest son serve in WW1 and their youngest in WW2..!!!

Yet HISORICALLY, these are regarded as two different generations and IN GENERAL they were. Mine is the classic case, with a Father in WW2 and both Grandfathers in WW1, but it's important to remember that the 'genetic' generations and the 'historical' ones don't correspond for everybody.

My fault, perhaps, for not explaining myself very well. Hope that clarifies things a little!

Been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Enjoy your simming,
Best regards,
panther3485