"History, I'm talking about history"

[General Billote]

Don't underestimate the Stuka as a terror weapon. Have you ever heard footage of a Stuka dive-bombing...It's unforgetable...terrifying especially to civilians...And remember terror bombing before the blitz on Poland had never been attemped on that scale. The effects were dramatic phychologically if not anything else.

[jon_j_rambo]

Rambo here. In regards to the "who gives a rats ass about Africa": I understand the importance of the Middle East oil, backdoor to Russia & their resources, the Suez Gateway to India & all that crap........That's great. But why land in Libya? Take your ships/tanks right to the Real-Deal. Yes, I know the British had a better Navy than the Italians; Sure, Libya had some bases, & it was a closer/safer journey than going to Egypt. But did Germany actually think they'd win driving across the barren wasteland? If the Brits had a better Navy, they'd sure be able to supply the land troops, send parts, food, more men, whatever.

I just don't understand the hype over Tobruk, the Desert Rats, & the rest of it.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sure, the Stuka's are a scary sight! I wouldn't want one on me & my house. But get real, bombing farmers with planes isn't that tough.

The results from the Battle of Britain showed that previous German victories were just the ambushing of civilians.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Rambo,

They have to land in Libya because the Axis have absolutely no way to put a force ashore anywhere else. The limitations on their ability to do a landing are so poor they are forced to take Crete with Paratroopers, and it was so costly they never dropped Paras en masse again.

After that, you have to contend with the Quatarra Depression -- which only holy men, scorpions, and the SAS are wont to traverse -- which creates a massive bottleneck between Libya and Egypt proper.

Third, you have to remember Monty is privelege to Ultra intercepts; and knows what Rommel will do before he does it. El Alamein was a total setup.

There is simply no other way to attack Africa; and you have to remember Mussolini screwed this one up and started it. And the Italians are so stupid they issue dried pasta as a ration of choice in the desert.

Hitler came in to save the day. Rommel, despite mulitple demands for a reorganization of the army forces involved never gained total control until it was simply too late to win.

[ November 15, 2002, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Andre Bolkonsky ]

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by Andre Bolkonsky:

The Russians do the heavy lifting in the war; but without allied Air superiority, control of the Atlantic, and Murmansk convoys (Coupled with US engineering marvels that allow the Ural industrial move); russia falls like a stone.

Damn right, the ridiculous

'top-10 'takes' on WWII (like David Letterman)'

completely disproved once again

[ November 15, 2002, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Sure, the Stuka's are a scary sight! I wouldn't want one on me & my house.

Never say never

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

But get real, bombing farmers with planes isn't that tough.

So Stukas chief task was it to bomb farms eh? Yeah, of course, i should have known

[Rouge]

hay stacks: the to confidential secreat to the nazi war machine.

they also threw sirins underneath the stukas just to add to the fear of people on the ground.

OK. i flicked through my books to find the cavalry charge here it is:

"Guderian drove back to his headquaters at Zahn to find that his staff officers and clerks were hurriedly digging slit trenches and setting up an Anti aircraft gun. They were responding to rumors that Polish cavalry had broken through their lines and were going to impale them on their lancers, Guderian was forced to once again boot his men back to their work.

The polish cavalry did turn up a couple of days later but not at Guderians headquaters. His swift advance had taken him from the German border clear across the polish corridor into east prussia cutting off sizable Polish forces to the north. Among these was the crack Pomorske Cavalry Brigade, which spearheaded a attempt to break out of the corridor and rejion the main polish forces to the south east. As the Germans looked on in disbelif, the troopers came riding down from the north on splendid horses; white gloved officers signaled the charge, trumpets sounded, pennons waved, sabers flashed in the sun. Like an animated page out of an old history book the brigade came forward across open feilds, at a steady earth-shaking gallop, lances at the ready, straight into the fire of Guderians tanks. In a few minutes the cavalry lay in a smokeing, sreaming mass of dismembered and disemboweled men and horses. When the survivors were trudging off to a german prison camp, some of them - according to one german account - were observed rapping incredulously on the sides of german tanks parked by the roadside: they had heard that the armor of the german tanks was made of cardboard." - Time-Life: WW2 book 2

That settles that i think

[Norse]

Originally posted by Rouge:

As the Germans looked on in disbelif, the troopers came riding down from the north on splendid horses; white gloved officers signaled the charge, trumpets sounded, pennons waved, sabers flashed in the sun. Like an animated page out of an old history book the brigade came forward across open feilds, at a steady earth-shaking gallop, lances at the ready, straight into the fire of Guderians tanks.

The Polish attacking with lances.

Now I've heard that too.

~Norse~

[JerseyJohn]

"There is only one thing I do not understand?"

"Mein Fuhrer?"

"If we are so underated, what are we doing here?"

[ November 15, 2002, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Flash Gordon]

The absolute accuracy of Time Life history books has been questioned in the past.

[jon_j_rambo]

# 1) Like I've already stated. The GERMANS WERE OVER-RATED. Big deal; they made alot tanks & planes to attack civilians, countries that weren't ready. Who did they ever beat? Was Pearl Harbor a "bad-ass move" for the Japs. Anybody can ambush somebody. They never got all of Norway, couldn't claim Yugoslavia for their own (nobody ever will), lost in N. Africa, etc.

The Germans got their ass handed to them in the Battle of Britain. Hitler couldn't do dick to England, so he turned to more farmers with pitch-forks in the Urkraine. They didn't do jack squat in the Med. either. They beat Poland...tanks who prepared, planes who surprised, & infantry who killed civilians. It took them an extra year just to clean-out civilians in Warsaw, Ha-Ha!

The Germans were OVER-RATED!!! The U.S. came in '42 & started laying down the law quickly. Just imagine if everybody was ready for the German pigs...

Oh, lets not forget about Russia.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

The absolute accuracy of Time Life history books has been questioned in the past.

Perhaps, but I also check these things with Wonder Book, Jr.

"Goebbles, I like these guys, they're so nutsy!"

[ November 15, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

# 1) Like I've already stated. The GERMANS WERE OVER-RATED.

Scientifical unqualified

[ November 15, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: JayJay_H ]

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

# 1 The U.S. came in '42 & started laying down the law quickly.

*Great Laughter*

Anybody could have won with their material supremacy

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by JayJay_H:

Anybody could have won with their material supremacy

Exactly. Who was it that said; "The United States GI was not the best soldier in WWII, he was the best EQUIPPED soldier in WWII?"

I remember a that quote from my reading somewhere. It might have been world instead of WWII in the quote.

-dave

[Andre Bolkonsky]

For the amount of time the US army was actually in the field, they performed quite well.

And, since that time, the US military has become an elite and unparalleled unit.

Plus, it is no mystery that the great Kesselchract pincer encirclements at the onset of the Russian war captured hundreds of thouands of unarmed men.

Forgive the United States army for equipping their soldiers, if you must. The US tactic has always been to send in a few well trained, well armed soldiers equipped with radios for the express purpose of serving as Foward Observers for artillery and air support. We found this a far superior tactic to taking peasants out of the field, giving every third one of them a rifle, and sending them across in waves screaming "Urra, Urra".

And, to this day, the US tends to keep most of its weapons for its own use. As oppossed to Moscow's corrupt willingness to sell $150 million dollar subs to Columbian drug lords for $15 million in cold hard cash.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Both sides did what they had to do to win the war. They just had different philosophies on how to do it. Due to different cultures.

The united states believed in applying the best most up to date equipment. That required educated soldiers.

The soviet union believed in numbers. Simple equipment of which an illiterate peasant can use.

Take for example when the german army gained the qualitative edge in Tanks with the Panther (forget the Aus. D mechanical problems for this) and the Tiger I.

At first the US was required to apply the Russian tactic of numbers to overcome this problem. All the while developing stronger tanks with a better punch.

The soviets applied numbers. They knew the german tanks were better, but they also knew that they could defeat them with numbers. Yes they developed stronger tanks but not to the level of the U.S. Sticking a 85mm gun onto a T-34 gave it more punch but overall it was the same tank.

Both methods worked. Each according to it's culture.

Very important to understanding WWII is understanding the cultures and socities of the combatants. Whether it US, German, British, Russian, etc, etc...

And for those the discount the way Russia fought the war, remember. It worked. What would have D-Day been like with all those German soldiers from the Eastern Front standing arm in arm waving "Hello".

Sorry for being so long winded.

-dave

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andre Bolkonsky:

Forgive the United States army for equipping their soldiers, if you must. The US tactic has always been to send in a few well trained, well armed soldiers equipped with radios for the express purpose of serving as Foward Observers for artillery and air support. We found this a far superior tactic to taking peasants out of the field, giving every third one of them a rifle, and sending them across in waves screaming "Urra, Urra".

Give the WWII Russians some credit. Prior to the Stalin Purges, they had a fine professional military. Also by the end of the war, the weight of their arty outclassed even the US. Fire control was unsophisiticated, but made up for in mass. The individual soldier was, by the end of the war, probably on par with the average German, British, or American soldier. Their late war tanks were also as good or better from a firepower and protection point of view compared to U.S. tanks, just not as refined or reliable.

[Potvin]

Some fine commentary in reaction to some very, very casual generalizations.

Just a note on what Flash said...

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

3) The Stukas were OVER-RATED !!! Anybody can bomb somebody who can't shoot back.

Stukas were very effective until the Battle of Britain where it became evident that they were very vulnerable in areas where the Luftwaffe did not have local air superiority.

True, the Stukas were vunerable if they did not have local superiority. Untrue, that they were no longer effective AFTER the BoB. In the Soviet Union, Stukas detroyed many hundreds of tanks, especially after they gained 37mm guns. (One Stuka pilot destroyed what amounted to an entire brigade of Soviet Tanks ALL by himself.)

Overrated?

Read "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" or "The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Kesselring."

[Flash Gordon]

Yes, Stukas were also effective in Russia - when the Luftwaffe had local air superiority. They were also effective in North Africa and the MTO when the Luftwaffe (and the RA) had local air superiority.

Once air superiority was lost, the Stukas were defenseless. Yes, Hans-Ulrich Rudel destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks (plus a few ships and around a dozen airplanes) but eventually, he, along with all the other Stuka pilots, had to convert to the FW190F (the ground attack version of the FW190) once the VVS began to close the qualitative gap with the Luftwaffe.

With that being said, the Stuka was an incredible machine for delivering bombs on target - highly accurate and devestating...when the Luftwaffe had air superiority.

[Potvin]

Glad we now agree.

[Flash Gordon]

Originally posted by Potvin:

Glad we now agree.

We ALWAYS agreed.

If you look at my first post, you'll note that I mentioned that the Stuka was effective when it operated under conditions of Luftwaffe air superiority - the first time this air superiority was contested and beaten was during the Battle of Britain. I think my wording in the first post may have been the result of this misunderstanding - I didn't mean to imply that the Stuka was effective and then BANG during and after the Battle of Britain it was a POS...I mentioned the Battle of Britain as an example of when the Stuka was not as effective as before (because of the loss of air superiority).

[I/O Error]

jon_j_rambo: Is there any chance you're going to read the comments people are making? I'm now getting the feeling (no offense intended) that your latest comment is based more on the basis of FAITH than it is on research.

No one can say the German Stuka was in ANY WAY "useless" after the BoB, or even during it. And quite frankly, how were the Germans supposed to win the BoB? In 1940 long range aircraft were not a reality. How CAN you effectively dogfight when you have 15 minutes at most over the target area? Much is said about the horrible mistake to switch bomber targets, but quite honestly it was not a very winnable battle. The British have radar, SERIOUSLY motivated pilots, "home turf" advantage both in terms of morale and in terms of what happens to damaged aircraft that can't return to base, and effectively full fuel tanks. The Germans had none of those advantages. I mean, if your oil line suddenly springs a leak over France, that's no biggy. If the same happens while you're over BRITAIN, that's something else entirely! Say hello to POW camp for the rest of the war, and you might not have been within 100 miles of a limey fighter.

JayJay's picture and caption in Paris is actually a really quite serious point. If they were so overrated, explain to me how the Germans destroyed the biggest army in Europe and bloodied the nose of another? Stop basing your opinions on faith. We, the US, did not enter the war in 42 and "lay the law down", get serious! I admit the comment is amusing and pithy, but it is not accurate.

[ November 15, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[Flash Gordon]

Rambo,

you state that Patton was a total stud. You also assert that the Germans were over-rated. Which leads us to a curious paradox.

Let us assume that Patton WAS a stud of war, the personification of Ares who is now sitting at the seat of honour at the banquet table in Valhalla, regaling all the other heroes of old with his tales of valour and battle.

Patton idolized the Germans, considering them man-for-man better than the average American soldier. Why would Patton think the Germans were good? Possibly due to impressions gleaned from the field of battle. So...if the Germans truly were over-rated, what does that say about Patton?

Food for thought...

Flash