Von Paulus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

JudgeDredd -> Von Paulus (8/21/2004 11:21:04 AM)

Was Paulus a yes man? Was it he who lost the battle for Stalingrad by blindly putting faith in Hitler? Was it he who was responsible for the capture and ultimate death of the majority of the 6th Army?

I was watching a documentary last night (read the book...excellent reading) and it just made me think....with my time in the army, there were alot of YES men...and they tended to be the promoted people...regardless of actual military knowledge in some cases.

Seems to me he sent his men to certain capture and ultimate death by ignoring what he saw on the ground. He knew the Russians had surrounded him and, while he still had a formidable fighting force, that force was pretty useless without the ammunition to show how formidable it could be. Also, when Von Mansteins recsue mission was within 30km of the trapped 6th Army, he "apparently" refused a requeste by Manstein to fight through to them on the basis that Hitler told him to stay put.

Just wanted some more "informed" opinions on this.

I personally take the view that he put his life before that of his men (being as he knew disobeying orders from Hitler would result in his execution). That is purely based on what I read in 1 book and what I saw on a couple of documentaries...so it's in no way a definitive take on the demise of the 6th Army



Kung Karl -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 3:28:06 PM)

I agree mostly. He should have done what manstein said and tried to break out. But on the other hand, a military man should follow orders. If everyone disobeyed orderes they did not like then the entire army would collapse and the war would be lost instanly. One needs to have faith in ones superior.

But what we know today, he did wrong.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 4:26:43 PM)

Based on what I've read and seen, Von Paulus was out of his depth and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Once 6th Army had its head in the meatgrinder of Stalingrad Paulus lacked the ability to either extricate it or break the jaws. Ultimate responsibility for the disaster has to go to Hitler though.



Error in 0 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 7:01:16 PM)

It cannot be stressed how deeply rooted the instinct of following orders was in Wehrmacht. They had a several hundred years of prussian tradition and ideal they followed. And for good reasons, as that usually ensured results. Such a system, however, rely on good commanders and good commands. Von Paulus was in trouble. Every instinct refused him to disobey Hitlers orders (indeed, he had sworn to follow them), and Hitler basically told him what HOUSES to attack. An unbeliviable situation for any commander. However, not breaking out to Manstein was probably just due to bad jugdement (and cowardice?). If Paulus was out of his deapths or not, I dont know. I would like to hear why you believe that Eric.


JT



*Lava* -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 8:19:09 PM)

Hi!

I always find it interesting reading these threads. I know it not intentional, but it seems like somehow people want to figure how the Nazi's could have done something different and won the war.

I'm glad they lost.

Ray (alias Lava)



dinsdale -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 9:05:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
I always find it interesting reading these threads. I know it not intentional, but it seems like somehow people want to figure how the Nazi's could have done something different and won the war.


I don't think it's any fascination with wanting the Nazis to win, but rather belief in the myth that a few key battles could have won the war. Almost all what-ifs fall into this trap, and usually the most elaborate take no account of adjustments from the other side.

I prefer what-ifs which might have won the war sooner for the allies. The result was a foregone conclusion, so there is at least some framework of reality in postulating earlier outcomes.



Frank W. -> RE: Von Paulus (8/21/2004 10:51:38 PM)

i think he was the wrong man.

i read that he before had not much experienc ecommanding troops in
battle, he was a staff man on regimental + divisional level.

some other commanders were quite surprised he got the command of 6th.

one man is often overlooked in thi scase though: göring !

he lighthearted promised to hitler his luftwaffe can supply the cauldon.

this wasn´t true as first hand accounts from richthofen ( front commander
of the luftwaffe in the stalingrad section show ). but as so often the
men who knew it better were not asked....



Error in 0 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/22/2004 4:03:29 AM)

Gøring is a story alone. That guy was more interested in glamour than in being a marshall. Im sure paulus was promised enough supplies by air, but by the time he had to consider breaking out, he must have understood that would not happen.


JT



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Von Paulus (8/22/2004 4:21:49 AM)

Paulus was a difficult figure to judge. He was a good Staff Officer, part of the team that examined the various options for Barbarossa. His initial handling of 6th Army before Blau was considered timid in some quarters, but his second major action at Kharkov saw him awarded the Knights Cross and help take 240 000 Russian prisoners.

I think he was held by his oath (he was a religious man if memory serves) and a fascination even admiration for Hitler, who had backed the counterattacks at Kharkov that saw the Russians encircled and Paulus win his medal. Stalingrad is difficult to judge, because any breakout would have caused the Germans a number of problems even though it would have a big one. I suspect it was easier for him to believe at the beginning that help was coming, than it was to order a breakout that would end his career. When it became apparent no help was coming, breakout was impossible, and Paulus had no options left. All he had was duty, and he carried it out. I don't think we should underestimate the Prussian tradition of obediance and duty, nor the power of the oath. He may even have realised that 6th Army's predicament was helping to some degree stabilise the German position in Southern Russia.

Had he had the character of a Hausser...who knows.

Regards,
IronDuke



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Von Paulus (8/22/2004 5:22:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

It cannot be stressed how deeply rooted the instinct of following orders was in Wehrmacht. They had a several hundred years of prussian tradition and ideal they followed. And for good reasons, as that usually ensured results. Such a system, however, rely on good commanders and good commands. Von Paulus was in trouble. Every instinct refused him to disobey Hitlers orders (indeed, he had sworn to follow them), and Hitler basically told him what HOUSES to attack. An unbeliviable situation for any commander. However, not breaking out to Manstein was probably just due to bad jugdement (and cowardice?). If Paulus was out of his deapths or not, I dont know. I would like to hear why you believe that Eric.


JT



For now I'll quote from 'Russia's War' by Richard Overy (p.182)

"General Friedrich Paulus was not the stuff of military legend. A bourgeois officer in an army still dominated by Germany's military gentry, he made his reputation as an able organiser and staff officer. He took control of the 6th Army only because of the sudden death of its flamboyant and tough commander, Walther von Reichenau, in January 1942. He was Reichenau's opposite; a quiet, subdued, unassertive individual who never lost his temper or became overexcited, loved Beethoven and hated the boorish side of military life. He was fastidious, even fussy, about his personal appearance. A fellow officer recalled a man 'well groomed and with slender hands, always beautifully turned out with a gleaming white collar and immaculately polished field boots'. Stalingrad was the last place on Earth for the tidy and the timid."

What one notices from the accounts of the battle is how few references there are regarding Paulus' command decisions up until the surrender. Whether any other general would have succeeded in his place is debatable but it seems to me that Paulus really didn't try!



terje439 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/23/2004 2:28:25 PM)

I agree, Gøring must take his part of the blame here, he promised that he would be able to fly in the resources von Paulus needed, but he barely managed to fly in 1/10th of the resources. But again I also agree that von Paulus should have tried to link up with Manstein. However from what I have read, von Paulus was also one of the generals that believed that Hitlers instincts would come through again, which it obviously did. However Stalingrad was a disaster waiting to happen for the germans, as the flanks were held by Hungarian, Rumanian and Bulgarian troops, that although fought bravely, just did not have the equiptment to hold against a russian counterattack. So there are several factors to take into consideration when looking at the disaster at Stalingrad.



Belisarius -> RE: Von Paulus (8/23/2004 3:12:03 PM)

In short, Paulus was a good commander, especially at Army level where his experience and skill in handling the day-to-day administration was put to good use. What he lacked was that extra something that was needed to break out of Stalingrad (or capture it!).

Then again, he was constantly assured by OKW that he would get the supplies and resources he needed to hang on. Did he really believe them, or did he choose to believe them?



SlapBone -> RE: Von Paulus (8/24/2004 3:50:05 AM)

History Channel running the special about this Hitler general again.

9pm Eastern Time



Tombstone -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 2:22:19 AM)

If you're in charge of 250,000 of your countries best and brightest soldiers you better be lucid enough to not be described as 'too much a product of a regions traditions to do the right thing'. Paulus was a good staff officer and not a good army commander. Army commanders need to increase the decisiveness of their charge, not decrease it. It may have been Hitler's fault for promoting him, and sure... Germany was already headed for disaster, with or without the 6th army. Once you pass the winter of 1941 it was just a matter of time. Stalingrad just sped things up.

Tomo



Golf33 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 2:55:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

If you're in charge of 250,000 of your countries best and brightest soldiers you better be lucid enough to not be described as 'too much a product of a regions traditions to do the right thing'.


Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33



Tombstone -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 5:35:36 AM)

Well compared to a lot of other German field marshals paulus's performance is left wanting. I agree with the whole depose hitler thing Golf, but your comment isn't taking the spirit of the post into consideration. I meant the right thing for the army to do.

And anyways they weren't morally paralyzed, many of them were really actively doing very immoral things. Also, leadership isn't inherently good natured so being evil doesn't make you a bad leader.

All in all the germans in many cases they did quite decently at the operational and strategic levels. Not as well as your average wehrmacht glorifier might say, but still. I think the Germans had a lot of high quality training and personel so I disagree with what you're implying on that level.

Tomo



a19999577 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 6:06:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33



That's quite an anachronical and/or decontextualized reading of the entire thing. German Generals could not have known, in 1938, that they would eventually be facing a multi-fronted war, with a Holocaust in the midst of it. As far as I know, planning was aimed at short war scenarios.

What I am going to say now is highly debatable [just as stating in 1938 that Hitler was going to be the ruin of Germany would have been... we have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't]: Mr. George W. Bush just might lead his country into an endless stream of wars that might lead to widespread unrest and increased 'terrorist' attacks on the US, with a 'dirty bomb', or perhaps a full-fledged A-bomb striking an important city. Now, would it be fair to state that American Generals should do the 'right thing' and depose Bush right now, while things still aren't as bad as they could be? (Think about Iran, Syria and North Korea...)



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 3:57:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Doesn't that apply to all of Germany's military commanders apart from Hitler? Doing the 'right thing' would have been to depose Hitler back in about 1938, if not earlier. The moral paralysis demonstrated by all the so-called leaders of the German armed forces before and during WWII is the absolute antithesis of true leadership and thus we shouldn't be surprised to find them unable to do the 'right thing' on a strategic and operational level either.

Regards
33



That's quite an anachronical and/or decontextualized reading of the entire thing. German Generals could not have known, in 1938, that they would eventually be facing a multi-fronted war, with a Holocaust in the midst of it. As far as I know, planning was aimed at short war scenarios.





But they were certainly aware (or at least should have been) of Nazi moral bankruptcy and Hitler's warlike intentions yet they continued to complicity support the regime. As Golf points out, the 'moral paralysis' of the German military command prevented them doing the 'right thing'. True, they could not have foreseen the Holocaust but the systematic persecution of Jews, Gypsies, political opposition etc. was already rife in 1938.



frank1970 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 4:13:28 PM)

Of course the US government had to be replaced, too, because they neglected Afroamericans the same rights as whites.

Going after parts of your population was a widespread hobby of ALL societies at that time.



Kevinugly -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 7:25:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Of course the US government had to be replaced, too, because they neglected Afroamericans the same rights as whites.

Going after parts of your population was a widespread hobby of ALL societies at that time.



Indeed! Racism, bigotry, the 'White Man's Burden' etc. was prevalent throughout the 'civilised' ([8|]) World. But Nazi Germany was the only one where it was State policy to eradicate a whole ethnic group existing within its borders and to do so by violent means.



a19999577 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 7:35:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Of course the US government had to be replaced, too, because they neglected Afroamericans the same rights as whites.

Going after parts of your population was a widespread hobby of ALL societies at that time.



Quite right.


quote:


But they were certainly aware (or at least should have been) of Nazi moral bankruptcy and Hitler's warlike intentions yet they continued to complicity support the regime.



I'm guessing most American Generals are 'certainly aware' or should be of Bush's warlike intentions... I mean, after all, Hitler bluffed his way into the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland, which were all issues in which he did have some semblance of justice. And his bluff was finally called over the Polish corridor issue, another fairly just cause for Germany.

Nowadays, we have a guy who was seemingly planning a war with Iraq (ok, these guys might have invaded Kuwait in 1990, but Poland invaded the USSR in the 1920s and voraciously took land from them, Lithuania and the quickly disappearing Czechoslovakia, so there are some similiarities there...) from the day he came into office, and he justified it over some WMD that there never seemed to be any evidence for.

Does the fact that American Generals are not overthrowing this warmonger mean they are 'morally paralyzed' and thus 'unable to do the right thing on a strategic and operational level either'?

Seems like a huge leap of logic right there...[:-]



Kevinugly -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 7:49:25 PM)

I think it's dangerous to draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler the way you do. As far as I'm aware Bush isn't advocating the kind of immoral policies Hitler did and I think that's what Golf is referring to rather than Hitler's war-mongering. The German generals lacked the will to see how debased the Nazi regime actually was and once WW2 had begun they were no longer in a position to do anything about it anyway.



dinsdale -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 8:01:06 PM)

Those who compare Bush, or anyone else without >10 million murders for that matter, to Hitler simply display their ignorance and emotional immaturity. Everytime Hitler, Nazi or Facist are used in today's world to describe what you do not agree with, not only do you cheapen the memory of real victims, but you also lesson the impact of what National Socialism truly is.

There are plenty of valid criticisms which can be levelled at Bush, "Hitler" is not one of them. Have a little more creativity, and display just some knowledge of what you're throwing around as an insult.



a19999577 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 9:05:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Those who compare Bush, or anyone else without >10 million murders for that matter, to Hitler simply display their ignorance and emotional immaturity. Everytime "Hitler", "Nazi" or "Fascist" are used in today's world to describe what you do not agree with, not only do you cheapen the memory of the real victims, but you also lessen the impact of what National Socialism truly is.

There are plenty of valid criticisms which can be levelled at Bush, "Hitler" is not one of them. Have a little more creativity, and display just some knowledge of what you're throwing around as an insult.


<I have corrected some of your spelling mistakes, btw>

Not quite. I am not comparing 1945 Hitler with Bush, I am comparing 1933-1938 Hitler's foreign policies with Bush only as far as their General's 'moral duty' to depose them is concerned. I insist that it is unfair to give German Generals the ability to foresee what was going to happen and thus hold them morally responsible for not preventing it. Right now we can debate our heads off on whether Bush is going to lead this world into an age of Atomic 'terrorism' due to his warmongering policies, but we don't know he will, just as anyone in 1938 didn't know Hitler would lead the world into another World War.

Sure, with the information available in 1938 or early 39 they could have argued that he would, but at the time it was mere speculation. What if I told you that with the information available now I speculated that Bush would start a war with North Korea, who would respond with nuclear attacks and facilitating nuclear technology to their enemy's enemies [Al-Qaida etc.], which would in turn lead to Tel Aviv and New York getting nuked with hidden weapons or something? Would it be fair of me to DEMAND Colin Powell lead a military insurrection against Bush in order to prevent what I speculate might happen?

I repeat, it is not my intention to insult either leader (Hitler or Bush) by comparing them to one another [nor am I trying to compare them], I am pointing out that one cannot make 'moral' admonishments based on information unavailable to the people at the time. It is academically senseless and baseless. Heinz Guderian couldn't escape his context any more than Colin Powell can.



riverbravo -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 9:10:04 PM)

Paulus is a tough one to figure out.

He's not like Hitler were the word 'lunatic' somes it all up nicely.

I think he was overwhelmed at the situation he was in.With good reason of course.

I also find it hard to believe that he bought into Goerings speal about 500,000 tons of supplies a day.

Paulus probably got to the point were just said enough.Maybe some of my men will make it home if we surrender.

I like the fact that he denied hitler his last man, last bullet crap.I dont like that fact that he cozied up to the Russians after he was captured.

I dont know if 6th army had enough to breakout even with Mansteins troops pushing to break them out.

The cause was lost.I blame it on Hitler.



Kevinugly -> RE: Von Paulus (8/26/2004 11:45:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577


Not quite. I am not comparing 1945 Hitler with Bush, I am comparing 1933-1938 Hitler's foreign policies with Bush only as far as their General's 'moral duty' to depose them is concerned. I insist that it is unfair to give German Generals the ability to foresee what was going to happen and thus hold them morally responsible for not preventing it. Right now we can debate our heads off on whether Bush is going to lead this world into an age of Atomic 'terrorism' due to his warmongering policies, but we don't know he will, just as anyone in 1938 didn't know Hitler would lead the world into another World War.




I know what you're saying but it's not the foreign policy that I believe Golf was referring to but the domestic policy. That's where the generals failed due to their 'moral paralysis' and where they could have given leadership and deposed Hitler in 1938.



Golf33 -> RE: Von Paulus (8/27/2004 2:18:57 AM)

Can I apologise at this point for derailing the thread? Tombstone is quite right, I took this out of context.

As far as Paulus' generalship is concerned, I don't think he demonstrated any greater degree of paralysis than any other German general - Rundstedt for instance - who obeyed orders from Hitler that were militarily suicidal (compare German actions in Normandy 1944 and the Ardennes, 1944-45). This applies as much to 6th Army's presence in Stalingrad in the first place as it does to their failure to break out - the whole thing seems to have been a serious error at a much higher level and cannot all the laid at Paulus' door.

I don't recall the source now, but I have read somewhere that the encirclement of 6th Army actually paid dividends to the Germans on a larger scale because it acted as a brake on the Soviet counter-offensive. This enabled the Germans to bring back their most exposed forces and prevented a disaster on the scale of Bagration. Had Stalingrad been evacuated in a timely manner, the Soviets might well have cut off the German forces advancing on Baku as well.

Regards
33



dinsdale -> RE: Von Paulus (8/27/2004 3:10:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577
<I have corrected some of your spelling mistakes, btw>

Good for you, hope it was an interesting task.


quote:

Not quite. I am not comparing 1945 Hitler with Bush, I am comparing 1933-1938 Hitler's foreign policies with Bush only as far as their General's 'moral duty' to depose them is concerned. I insist that it is unfair to give German Generals the ability to foresee what was going to happen and thus hold them morally responsible for not preventing it.

So none of them read Mein Kampf, knew about the Nuremburg Laws, or knew of any attrocity carried out in Germany, Austria or The Sudentenland. Must have been a very lazy set of officers to be so unaware of their leader's grand design and the actions being carried out by their troops.

quote:

Right now we can debate our heads off on whether Bush is going to lead this world into an age of Atomic 'terrorism' due to his warmongering policies, but we don't know he will, just as anyone in 1938 didn't know Hitler would lead the world into another World War.

No, no one was aware of the Z-plan, or had partaken in militarist expansion between 1936 and 1938 at all [8|] I'm sure the war came as a huge surprise to the German military, somehow less of a surprise than to Britain and France who began war preparations before the ink on Munich was dry.

quote:

Sure, with the information available in 1938 or early 39 they could have argued that he would, but at the time it was mere speculation. ... Would it be fair of me to DEMAND Colin Powell lead a military insurrection against Bush in order to prevent what I speculate might happen?

It was most certainly more than mere speculation in 1938. If the scenario you propose today were as clear-cut as that, then it would be a duty of Powell et al to prevent it from happening.

quote:

Heinz Guderian couldn't escape his context any more than Colin Powell can.

No, I suppose Guderian had no idea what would happen when war was threatened in 1938, how could he possibly forsee a war one year later.

Perhaps the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal puts it better than I can

[referring to General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces] They have been responsible in large measure for the miseries and suffering that have fallen on millions of men, women and children. They have been a disgrace to the honourable profession of arms. Without their military guidance the aggressive ambitions of Hitler and his fellow Nazis would have been academic and sterile. Although they were not a group falling within the words of the Charter they were certainly a ruthless military caste. The contemporary German militarism flourished briefly with its recent ally, National Socialism, as well as or better than it had in the generations of the past

Apologies for my part in derailing the thread. I care nothing for what others may think of Bush, but whenever the comparison to Nazi Germany is made it cheapens the suffering of that regieme's victims, and the cost in lives to remove them from the earth.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Von Paulus (8/27/2004 3:23:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

Can I apologise at this point for derailing the thread? Tombstone is quite right, I took this out of context.

As far as Paulus' generalship is concerned, I don't think he demonstrated any greater degree of paralysis than any other German general - Rundstedt for instance - who obeyed orders from Hitler that were militarily suicidal (compare German actions in Normandy 1944 and the Ardennes, 1944-45). This applies as much to 6th Army's presence in Stalingrad in the first place as it does to their failure to break out - the whole thing seems to have been a serious error at a much higher level and cannot all the laid at Paulus' door.

I don't recall the source now, but I have read somewhere that the encirclement of 6th Army actually paid dividends to the Germans on a larger scale because it acted as a brake on the Soviet counter-offensive. This enabled the Germans to bring back their most exposed forces and prevented a disaster on the scale of Bagration. Had Stalingrad been evacuated in a timely manner, the Soviets might well have cut off the German forces advancing on Baku as well.

Regards
33


I'd disagree on Normandy, I think this was an infantryman's battle, not a Generals, and Rundstedt may have been paralysed, but not necessarily to German detriment in this battle. Mortain is lunacy, but this comes very late when the situation is beyond redemption, and is Hitler's fault.

I agree about 6th Army's encirclement. A large number of Soviet forces were tied down reducing the pocket for several weeks. This allowed Army Group A (if memory serves) to withdraw from the Caucasus. Manstein's armoured thrust to relieve Stalingrad also drew an entire Guards Army away from the ongoing Soviet Offensives to block it. This left the offensives short on resources, particularly in the face of the ongoing and exellent tactical performance of Balck and 11th Panzer (amongst others).

Unpalatable as it may seem, you can argue that the continuing resistance and eventual sacrifice of 6th Army allowed Manstein to stablise the Southern front in the face of intense Soviet pressure and extricate another Army Group from potential encirclement. I'm not wholly convinced (but it is a powerful argument that has a lot of merit, and I am certainly partially convinced).

Regards,
IronDuke



IronDuke_slith -> RE: Von Paulus (8/27/2004 3:28:36 AM)

As for the Bush thing.....

I don't think it was ever going to be likely for any German General to resist Hitler during re-armament in the 30s. Prussian military tradition, the oath, the string of foreign policy successes, the rising numbers of NAZIs in the Junior ranks of the Officer Corp (but some senor as well) meant it was never on.

I wouldn't expect or want any American General to oppose Bush (regardless of what I think of the war in Iraq) because Bush was democratically elected (chads notwithstanding) and if the Army isn't going to bow to the will of the people, then we're at risk from them nearly as much as we are from any potential enemy.

Regards,
IronDuke



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375