The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

Randy Mauldin · October 10, 2000

Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany?

I thought the arguement was over wheather the USA or Germany would have won in a straight up fight, not specifically how it could be accomplished. You could argue all day over that one.

------------------

It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me.

Randy Mauldin · October 10, 2000

Oops...sorry about the double post....thought the first one didn't take.

------------------

It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me.

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

Again, assuming the US could have carrier launched a bomber capable of dropping a bomb on Berlin, how could it carrier launch enough fighters to protect the bomber from an undefeated Luftwaffe? You are sidestepping the questions you don't want to answer.

Assuming the question is US v. Axis (which, in fact, the original question was not. It was the US v. Germany), from where does the US launch an invasion of Africa? Can it do so without British naval cooperation? Can it do so against an undefeated German and Italian military, which have been unmolested by Britain, and which has had time to fortify Africa against invasion?

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Randy Mauldin:

Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany?

I thougt the question was whether the USA or Germany would win in a straight up fight, not specifically how it could be accomplished. You could argue that till the cows come home. This discussion seems to be going nowhere.

I repeat: you cannot ask this question without qualifying it. To do so is meaningless.

I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, but for different reasons than you are implying.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

October 10, 2000

Originally posted by Jarmo:
The common knowledge of WWII goes a bit like this here in finland.

1. Germans were evil nazis, Hitler was their leader.
2. Hitler wanted to kill all the jews, so the americans had to fight him. The british helped a bit.
3. As the movies so well show it, the americans had to fight against overwhelming odds.
They prevailed because they were morally superior.
4. Germany also had some sort of skirmish against the russians.

Afterwards I have learned that not all of these are absolute truths.
The obvious counterreaction is to see the germans in a bit too
positive light. I'm doing my best to be objective, but it's
hard to estimate your objectivity.

Hey Jarmo and other

One thing I would like to add. Not all German
Troops were Nazis, some were just soldiers doing their duty for Germany. Nazi troops were supposedly the best of the German troops.

Just wanted to clear this up as my Grandfather was a German officers the German Army (NOT A NAZI). The Nazis were the evil one. The German Army troops were just following orders often by th Nazis

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Assuming the question is US v. Axis (which, in fact, the original question was not. It was the US v. Germany), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't go with US vrs Germany as it places Germany in an even WORSE position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>from where does the US launch an invasion of Africa? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same place that they did in WWII, the US East Coast. Didn't you know that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Can it do so without British naval cooperation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Can it do so against an undefeated German and Italian military, which have been unmolested by Britain, and which has had time to fortify Africa against invasion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. You can't "fortify" the whole coastline.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-10-2000).]

Holdit · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606:

I must admit I play the German side more then the US side. I like the German uniforms and their tanks. US uniforms are so drab and the US tanks are so darn ugly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the Sherman's a bad looking tank at all. I'm sure I'd fancy one after a couple of pints...

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Again, assuming the US could have carrier launched a bomber capable of dropping a bomb on Berlin, how could it carrier launch enough fighters to protect the bomber from an undefeated Luftwaffe? You are sidestepping the questions you don't want to answer.

Assuming the question is US v. Axis (which, in fact, the original question was not. It was the US v. Germany), from where does the US launch an invasion of Africa? Can it do so without British naval cooperation? Can it do so against an undefeated German and Italian military, which have been unmolested by Britain, and which has had time to fortify Africa against invasion?

Chup, if the whole of Europe fortified for five years and stood united against the might of the USA, it would fall. The unmolested Luftewaffe would have been molested, heavily. Its forces would have, like those of the Japanese, been destroyed while the US built up the American Air Force. Could the US have invaded a fortified Africa? Most assuredly, that barren, fractured continent could have been invaded at any point. Could the US have defeated a united German and Italian army with strong Luftwaffe and Italian air support? Of course. You seem to be missing the point here so I will state it clearly:

The United States of America has a greater industrial, social and political might than any other nation or any conglomeration of nations on Earth. There is no way that Germany could have stood against them, Germany, where mass production hadn't taken hold. Germany, with the industrial might of the STATE of New York. What naval cooperation would the US need? How could any nation stand before the US at that time? Chup, what group of nations could have held back their might? Do you realize the size difference between the two? The industrial difference? The resource difference? In every measure, the US is at least twice the size of Germany and often many times that. Finally, only one nation had access to nuclear weaponry during that war and it was not Russia, Britain, France or Germany.

The United States fought World War II with one hand tied behind its back. Look at the casualties, look at the production. If need required it, they would have just taken the other hand out and destroyed Germany. As it was, they were happy to let Russia, France and Britain take the brunt of the fighting and support them, rather than take on Germany, Italy and Japan all by itself.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

Holdit · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Bah! What army goes into battle were a dress uniform! Seriously, the allies had much more practicle uniforms as a whole.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Practical, practical... Beats me - I'll have to look it up.

Chupacabra · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Chup, if the whole of Europe fortified for five years and stood united against the might of the USA, it would fall. The unmolested Luftewaffe would have been molested, heavily. Its forces would have, like those of the Japanese, been destroyed while the US built up the American Air Force. Could the US have invaded a fortified Africa? Most assuredly, that barren, fractured continent could have been invaded at any point. Could the US have defeated a united German and Italian army with strong Luftwaffe and Italian air support? Of course. You seem to be missing the point here so I will state it clearly:

The United States of America has a greater industrial, social and political might than any other nation or any conglomeration of nations on Earth. There is no way that Germany could have stood against them, Germany, where mass production hadn't taken hold. Germany, with the industrial might of the STATE of New York. What naval cooperation would the US need? How could any nation stand before the US at that time? Chup, what group of nations could have held back their might? Do you realize the size difference between the two? The industrial difference? The resource difference? In every measure, the US is at least twice the size of Germany and often many times that. Finally, only one nation had access to nuclear weaponry during that war and it was not Russia, Britain, France or Germany.

We are now officially at an impasse. Your position seems to be that the US is big and buff and can do whatever it wants. Mine is that the US could not have fought in a geopolitcal vaccuum. No nation could.

I will ask you one final question. Do me a favor, answer it simply, don't spin off into the a-bomb, don't sidestep the question.

If the US could have won the war by itself, why did Eisenhower allow himself to take so much flak from the American generals and public for attempting to compromise with Britain? It wasn't because Monty was a dashingly persuasive fellow.

I submit that it was because Eisenhower could not allow the alliance between the US and Britain to fracture.

Just answer the question.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

October 11, 2000

Originally posted by CavScout:

If you believe that, which I take it you do, then that means the Allies out-performed the Axis at the tactical level, on average. If the battles were always "even" and knowing the Allies continued to make progress, wouldn't this mean the Allies were better at this level?

Cav

I think I see what you are getting at. Were the Allies better at a tactical level, IN THE WAR ITSELF?

That's a whole other debate I think, and I know some are going to disagree with me. In MY opinion, however, from what I've read so

far, it was summed up in a quote from a US army study after the war (don't have the book to hand so from memory)

"By late 1944, analyzing the figures, we came to the conclusion that in battle 100 Germans were worth about 125 US or British Troops, or about 200 Soviets. This did not mean that the average German was any more brave or intelligent than the average Russian, but when fighting in combat units, the average German was about as effective as twice as many Russians.....as a former officer in the US military, I'll admit that these numbers did not particulary please me as one would have assumed by the latter part of the war we would have learned enough that the numbers would have been approximatly even.....more than anything the advantage seemed to come down to the Germans General Staff system. The British, American, and Russian armies all had generals that were every bit as good as the best of the Germans, but the Germans had 10 times as many."

So in other words better commanders. The command system also tended to go from the front to the back, and high ranking commanders were at the front a lot more often than the Allied (collecting much higher casualities, BTW. Steel Inferno is a really

interesting read on the different command styles). I'd throw in the better small unit bonding from the better replacement system

and a few other things, but staying on the main point...

So, the commanders and the command system made the difference. But in CM, YOU are the commander. This evens things up. From what I've seen, between a good German and a good

American commander, with everything else being equal, battles were won or lost based on who could managed his particular advantages and disadvantages better and/or who lady luck was shining on that day, just like in CM.

This is from the PBEM thread, but probably has a place here. I think there are pretty good reasons why so much German army doctrine was adopted by the western powers after the war. Of course hey, I could be wrong.

I have to admit I don't see why this is such a big deal to some people.

Hamstersss · October 11, 2000

Chup,

For PR purposes and because Britain proved to be a useful ally. That the US could defeat Germany and most of the rest of the world all by its lonesome does not contradict the fact that allies help share the cost.

Also, your plea to not spin off into the A-Bomb is a strange one. If you are offended by the fact that this was an American invention than that is too bad. If you feel it is not a significant invention, you are wrong. If you feel it does not serve a social and military purpose, you are still wrong.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

Von Brizee · October 11, 2000

Well, a little late her, but people argue about the Pacific Front being "bigger" than the Eastern Front. Sure, size wise. But look at the amount of troops and equipment in action at any one time, and the threats to the nations.

In the Eastern Front, millions of troops were CONSTANTLY in battle with both sides hoping to capture the other's capital, and they both had very good chances to. Germans came close, and Russians did it. The Pacific was mostly OCEAN. Eastern Front was LAND, involving a much higher density of combat forces per unit of distance. Plus, USA was NOT threatened with invasion in pacific, and neither was Japan, to a lesser degree.

So don't go talking about how the Pacific Front was "bigger" Look at the casualties, the biggest battles had very little compared to the losses in Europe.

Monticello · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

B-29s delivered the bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were the best planes to do it there. The bomb wasn't heavy so it could have been launched from a B-24 launched from an aircraft carrier, as I said, a la Doolitte.

The B-24 couldn't launch from an aircraft carrier...I believe you meant to say B-25. Assuming an empty B-24 could launch from a carrier, it still couldn't carry the payload, since the max payload is 8,800lbs whereas the smallest of the atomic bombs, Little Man, weighed 8,900lbs (see <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html." TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html</A>.</A>

At max payload, the B-24 range is approximately 800 miles. So, even if the B-24 could be launched from an aircraft carrier with 100lbs over max payload, the US Carriers would still be in German torpedo-bomber range to launch the attack against Berlin.

Fact is, the B-29 was the ONLY heavy bomber in US inventory that carry the atomic bombs created at the time.

[This message has been edited by Monticello (edited 10-10-2000).]

Gen. Sosaboski · October 11, 2000

OK, the regular German soldier is quite good at just about anything, and they do have some strange and cool looking tanks/vehicles. However, I've also found that M18 Hellcats and 105mm VT are serious rock n'roll.

It all balances out in the end. Personally, I like to see it with a knocked out MkIV surrounded by Poles .

Hamstersss · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Monticello:

The B-24 couldn't launch from an aircraft carrier...I believe you meant to say B-25. Assuming an empty B-24 could launch from a carrier, it still couldn't carry the payload, since the max payload is 8,800lbs whereas the smallest of the atomic bombs, Little Man, weighed 8,900lbs (see <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html." TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html</A>.</A>

At max payload, the B-24 range is approximately 800 miles. So, even if the B-24 could be launched from an aircraft carrier with 100lbs over max payload, the US Carriers would still be in German torpedo-bomber range to launch the attack against Berlin.

Fact is, the B-29 was the ONLY heavy bomber in US inventory that carry the atomic bombs created at the time.

[This message has been edited by Monticello (edited 10-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected Monticello, I did not realize they were that heavy and I did flip-flop the 24 and 25. What was the capacity of the 25?

I'm not quite sure how my argument came to be that of lone American nuclear bombers hitting a perfectly functional Germany. I'm not a proponent of this but I am a proponent of reducing German air and naval assets and then nuking vital transportation, industrial and economic centers. Remember, I'm not saying that the only thing that would have allowed the US to win was the atom bomb, I think that the US would win because of its enormous economic, industrial and resource might and that the atom bomb would make that victory easier.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chupacabra · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Chup,

For PR purposes and because Britain proved to be a useful ally. That the US could defeat Germany and most of the rest of the world all by its lonesome does not contradict the fact that allies help share the cost.

Also, your plea to not spin off into the A-Bomb is a strange one. If you are offended by the fact that this was an American invention than that is too bad. If you feel it is not a significant invention, you are wrong. If you feel it does not serve a social and military purpose, you are still wrong.

Where did I imply that the a-bomb offends me, or that I feel it's insignificant?

I asked you to answer my question without going off onto tangents, that's all.

Regarding your answer:

What can I say. Your viewpoint is much more simplistic and cynical than my own. Since I cannot convince you that you're wrong, I see no reason to go on trying.

Cheers.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Hamstersss · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

What can I say. Your viewpoint is much more simplistic and cynical than my own. Since I cannot convince you that you're wrong, I see no reason to go on trying.

We live in a simple, cynical world, my friend.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

The Commissar · October 11, 2000

Look at all this, I say, a thread asking a simple question transformed into a thread glorifying the Americans and their contribution to the war.

Reading through some but not all (sorry, I have a social life) of these posts it seems to me like there are a few people "defending the honor" of the US as the great savior or something of this sort.

Yes, US did have a ton of money to burn on a war effort. No, that doesn't automatically make them great fighters or saviours of "the other guys" who just went in and took the most casualties.

If anyone should be prased and honored it should be the poor Russian pesants who were given guns and forced to die in waves for a government most of them hated to be a part of.

All these posts about Americans and their "great sacrifices" seem to forget that the US lost the least men and went through the "easiest" fighting out of most participants of the war.

Now don't jump on me yet, I admit that dead men are dead men and a war is a war. Wars aren't a walk in the park. Even some of you die hard patriots here have to admit that the US fough considerably over powered enemies, both in the Pacific and in Europe.

Some forget just how damn lucky the US is with their strategical possitions. If the US was created in the viccinity (bad spelling, I appologize) of Europe, how would it stand up to a Blitzkrieg?

European countries did not have this natural advantage. Also, the US never went through the sort of suffering most of the other countries went through. On the Eastern front, the hatred between the two sides was so intense that villages of civilians would be butchered, prisoners would rarely be taken, and bodies of the dead desecrated to a horrendous extent.

My grand father who fought for the USSR in the war has a photograph of this brutality. A dead German soldier is propped up on a stake implaed through his @$$. On his "willy" he has a sign hanging with an arrow pointing right that says "To Berlin". In the back ground my grand dad and his comrades are standing and smiling as if this was an every day sight. You know what? It probobly was.

Now, the US fighting men did see their share of fighting and violence. You have to admit though, that in NONE of their campaigns has this sort of hatred was shared with any of the US' enemies.

Just think about my points before continuing to praise the US fighting men, who have indeed earned their place in history, haven't seen just how brutal and dirty war can get.

Well that was my little rant. No, wasn't too enjoyable I must admit, but that's war for you.

::edited for careless spelling::

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 10-10-2000).]

Hamstersss · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Look at all this, I say, a thread asking a simple question transformed into a thread glorifying the Americans and their contribution to the war.

Reading through some but not all (sorry, I have a social life) of these posts it seems to me like there are a few people "defending the honor" of the US as the great savior or something of this sort.

Yes, US did have a ton of money to burn on a war effort. No, that doesn't automatically make them great fighters or saviours of "the other guys" who just went in and took the most casualties.

If anyone should be prased and honored it should be the poor Russian pesants who were given guns and forced to day in waves for a government most of them hated to be a part of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, you didn't read much of this. There have been no glorification of the US, nor have there been insults toward Germany, Russia or Britain. What there has been is a debate as to whether or not the US could have won the war by itself. As well as an older debate about whether or not it's fair that the Allied troops in CM have as much variety as those in WWII.

It's good to know you're pro-Russia, though.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

CavScout · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

I stand corrected Monticello, I did not realize they were that heavy and I did flip-flop the 24 and 25. What was the capacity of the 25?

Consolidated B-24 Liberator max. 12,800 lbs. of bombs

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress max. 17,600 lbs. of bombs

North American B-25 Mitchell max. 3,000 lbs. of bombs

Boeing B-29 Superfortress max. up to 20,000 lbs. of bombs

Mk-I "Little Boy" 8,900 lb.

Mk-III "Fat Man" 10,300 lb.

http://www.ixpres.com/ag1caf/usplanes/ http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Med/Lbfm.html

The Commissar · October 11, 2000

Yub, you're right Elijah. I've skipped the last 2 pages. 120+ posts is a bit too much for me since I have a limited amount of time.

Could the US win the war all by itself...hmmm...IMHO, would have been very difficult. I also think that the US would have backed down after they had taken over a million casualties.

US just can't handle so much dead, people complain and moan and the Govt is forced to give up. Think 'Nam. Same idea, IMO.

mrk_dog · October 11, 2000

I always must chuckle when I hear they "fought against overwhelming odds". Other than France, Germany's victores were against inferior and smaller forces.

Cav

Poland was not a smaller inferior force to germany prior to the war. That is why England and France were willing to sign a joint defense pack with Poland. France and England (and many others) thought Poland could defeat Germany in a war and that is why Poland was allowed to goad germany into war. France and England never realized that would have to engulf themselves in total war to save their Polish ally. The fact that the Polish Army was inferior was only proven after the shooting started.

Why are the Germans "admired".

Germans and Japanese had much lower desertion rates in compared to the allies (until the collapse of the German Army). So they were "tougher".

and

"History does not remember those who win, only those who fight"

Menachem Begin

The men in the Germans Army fought well.

Just my 2 cents

Mrk

M. Bates · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If anyone should be prased and honored it should be the poor Russian pesants who were given guns and forced to day in waves for a government most of them hated to be a part of.

All these posts about Americans and their "great sacrifices" seem to forget that the US lost the least men and went through the "easiest" fighting out of most participants of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Americans are bound to be unbearable and self-obsessed: they are at the end of their "turn".

Don't you idiots realise just HOW MUCH equipment the Americans would need to assault Europe?? Their supply lines would effectively be HUNDREDS of times longer than the German supply lines, AND they would be contending with a large air and submarine threat. The Germans would know for DAYS or WEEKS before hand where the Americans would plan to land. Stop believing this macho bull****, and maybe watch some other movies other than Private Ryan with its slow motion shots of the star spangled banner.

In the next Century instead we will have Chinese History Channel historians, regaling all and sundry about how their country is virtuous and God fearing, and how they have fought to protect their way of life...

------------------

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

Hamstersss · October 11, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

The Americans are bound to be unbearable and self-obsessed: they are at the end of their "turn".

Don't you idiots realise just HOW MUCH equipment the Americans would need to assault Europe?? Their supply lines would effectively be HUNDREDS of times longer than the German supply lines, AND they would be contending with a large air and submarine threat. The Germans would know for DAYS or WEEKS before hand where the Americans would plan to land. Stop believing this macho bull****, and maybe watch some other movies other than Private Ryan with its slow motion shots of the star spangled banner.

In the next Century instead we will have Chinese History Channel historians, regaling all and sundry about how their country is virtuous and God fearing, and how they have fought to protect their way of life...

Wow Bates, this is what everyone said Japan was going to the US twenty years back. And everyone said the US was through in the 1850s. And Europe said the US was through in the Great Depression. And the Soviets said the US was through in the 70s.

And now China? Are you kidding? China is a joke, they have a societal mess over there. Their military is 30 years behind the times. They have no political stability. Their infrastructure is crap and you think they'll surpass the US?

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Shatter50

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest machineman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements