SoDak

Fighting ? Nah. Not even close

I think this statement still stands. Like I said before, you have posted nothing but your baseless opinions, which without supporting facts or sources, means nothing. </font>

<shrug> Yes and no. It wasn't a superior military system, as events proved, twice. In terms of training, disagree. The only "superior training" they had was that they were looking for a fight, while everyone else was wanting to avoid one. Not hard to appear to have "superior training or tactics" in that scenario. Once the scenario changed to both having the same political mindset, show was over. Twice. [ July 13, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]

Definately. But then, thats not some inherent, superior genetic or whatever, German military trait as so many like to believe. Thats simple politics.

Lol, you're too much smartass. The 1940 French ? Give me a break; they couldn't be more than a speed bump to anyone in the chaotic state they were in, the entire war for that matter. Vichy ring a bell ? BEF ? Hardly even a bump, due to their size. But if you're so knowledgeable, you knew that already, right ? Yeah, the Germans did great....in Poland, Low Countries, Norway, France, Balkans......wow, impressive But hey, I couldn't care less if you agree or not, but nice try I know the truth must be frustrating(or why the anger ?); thats what happens when bubbles burst.

Lol, wow. I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, who knows what though. Haven't seen that kind of, cough, logic, since I was in my teens.

Lol, sure buddy. I'm so upset What a loser; that important to you eh ? That says a lot in itself. Since another German Military star gazer, Seamonkey, posted some authors, how about John Keegan ? (btw in answer to your age question, I'm way past the age of being easily impressionable, something I'd bet you're not, or at least, should be.) He's said the same thing; German military were overrated, etc. I find your comments about the superior German military system amusing. Almost verbatim what the Germans themselves said at the time, which tells me everything I need to know about your level of knowledge on the subject. I wonder if they still said that in the bunker ? Take your pick of sources. For that matter, keep listening to your copy of Panzerleid as you play cm. No skin off my back; you want to be a niave German star gazer, your choice. <shrug> [ July 10, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]

Yep, and anyone who believes the German military was superior needs to widen their perspective

And who came up with these ratings ? The author ? Sounds pretty subjective then, if so. Why would I want to read another starry eyed/ignore the facts account of the German military ? I can get a Paul Carrell book for that. For that matter, which "Hitlers Last Gamble" book ? There's many of them with that in the title. Bottom line is there's a lot of myth buildup about the German military of the war, and they being supermen, while everyone else were tactical morons, is one of the most common. Poor ol' Allies. Getting circles run around them by the superior German military.....yeah, right.

Care to supply some links for this assertion ? I'm really interested in your "claim" that recent US military reorgs are based on German items from WW2, but the "everyone copied them" is a good one too.

Another myth believer. Allies(you know, the guys who actually kicked the "superior" German military ?) were just as high, if not higher, calibre. But since they didn't have snazzy uniforms, weapons, whatever, they don't count I guess, eh ? [ July 09, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]

...this goes to show that best tactics may come to nothing if the srategy is bad enough. Hitler wasted an incredibly good army in aimless pursuits. Hitler never had a strategy to defeat Russia. Think about it: Hitler's plan called for the encirclement and destruction of Russian armies. Barbarosas first objectiive was to destroy the Russian armies. The secondary objective was to take Lenningrad and Moscow. Hitler's was Napoleon's strategy: defeat the Tsar's army and you have defeated Russia. Well, back then the Tsar had only one army. And, any way, the strategy failed misserable for Napoleon. Second, Napoleon had such a hard time destroying the Tsar's army because Napoleon was never able to surround it. So the Russian soldiers often lived to fight another day. Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes. Hitler's army encircled millions of men in multiple engagements. But the Panzer Forces were too small, and did not have enough tracked vehicles (relying too much on trucks to carry most of the Panzer Grenadiers) to keep a tight lid on the encircled armies. Many Russian soldiers left their equipment behind and slipped through the German lines to fight another day. Much like Napoleon's, Hitler's army was given a task it could not perform. But more important, the defeat of so many Russian armies did not represent any strategic advance. The Russians kept on recruiting more men to make good their losses. And the heavy losses did not diminish the Russians will to fight. Hitler's secondary objective were the capture of Leningrad and Moscow. Again, there is no reason to believe that the capture of those two cities would have resulted in the collapse of the Russian government. Hitler had no strategy for victory. Whatever tactical advantages the German's had, they were useless without a sound strategic plan for victory. </font>

And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice.

Try using WinRAR (www.rarlabs.com). I created those using it and have had clients tell me the same thing before when using Winzip or other archivers to open a WinRAR zip. </font>