Random Discussion #2

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

The fact that the Middle East oil didn't have to be sent to Britain and was used by it's fleet and in Asia instead in no way diminishes it's importance! Had they not had the source they'd have needed to send oil to these locations from the U. S. and South America, probably diminishing their surprise.

In Russia the severity of the winter was unforseeable except the Russians themselves always planned on a harsh winter and their lubricants were made specifically to tolerate extreme weather; the Germans had no equivalent.

What Germany did initially in the USSR that could have been prevented was this. The Generals wanted to take European Russia from North to South, grabbing the areas with the earliest and harshest winters first. That might well have saved them when the ice came along.

Leningrad and the entire Baltic coast lay open to Army Group North in July and August. Hitler, for reasons known only to himself, kept chosing to transfer troops south as they were about to achieve their objectives to the north. He diverted south and didn't take Leningrad, diverted south and didn't take Moscow and finally, after wearing out his tanks, depleting and exhausting his crews, he began turning back north again at the exact moment the ground began turning to mud.

As it began snowing Bock, CinC Army Group Center, was going alone toward Moscow and unsupported by both Rundstedt (AG South) and Leeb (AG North), who had already settled in for the winter. The decision to push forward at that point was more to blame on von Bock than on Hitler. A short time later, when the frontline troops found themselves freezing, Hitler refused to allow them to withdraw. In fairness he was correct, AG Center had no prepared positions for them to fall back upon and a general retreat might well have degenerated into a route.

Germany did not take replacing severe losses into consideration till it was far too late. Nor did they have any plan in Russia other than the original wishful thinking of arrows going straight from Poland to Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. Militarily, Hitler never had a step two, only a step one.

Naturally Germany would have been better prepared in 1942. It's an open question as to whether the USSR would have been proportionately stronger or weaker than they were in June 41 in relation to the 1942 Axis forces alligned against them.

Going into what Germany should have done is a bottomless pit, of course.

Truth is, Germany should have done almost everything differently starting with the moronic persecution of the Jews and pushing it's imbecilic racial supremecy theories. Compared to those aspects, the military issues shrink to near insignificance.

Severe casualties in the USSR? There were three or four million Russian POWs in German hands by that first winter and nearly all of them would have jumped at the opportunity to help knock Stalin out of power. Instead of recruiting them, the SS was having a good time letting them die of exposure, exhaustion from slave labor and ourright execution. It's difficult to make excuses for a regime that self-destructive, stupid and downright evil.

I'm overjoyed the Nazis were so stupid and threw it all away. Given it all to do again, Hitler and company would always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[ September 01, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Seawolf]

To Jersey

As always John your masterful. It has always confussed me about captured russian tanks. The Germans used Czech tanks after swallowing up the Sudenland, and french tanks after the glorious fall of frogland, but never Russian T-34's. Never seen any pictures of T-34's with swastika's on them? Strange.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

My thanks and likewise!

The Germans catured a lot of T-34s and I agree, I've never seen one that they put to direct use. No doubt they incorporated aspects of it's design, I believe in the caterpillers of the Tiger and Panther tanks, but I'm really not even certain of that much.

The tank was based on an American design that was rejected by the U. S. Army, no doubt in favor of the superior Grant and Sherman medium tanks!

Good point about the captured items. If you find the answer I'd be interested in knowing about it. I can only figure they adapted the parts for other uses, but that's a real longshot.

[Liam]

John points it right! Indecision, a lack of a real final Goal in that First '41 offensive! Germans achieved a massive lead, and captured a lot of Russian Infantry and Tanks and other goodies. They did push the Russians to the very Grounds of their CAPITOL! That's an achievement and they didn't again consolidate their gains and really do the final and probably victorious move, take the Cake. In SSI's Eastern Front, I would always ensure Leningrad and Moscow fell first Winter that usually spelt the end, even if the enemy retook the Capitol.. The next Summer offensive I was in a position to retake Moscow and then push for Stalingrad, and boom...

Why they were so unprepared, it's almost like Napoleon and his great offensive on Russia. Most say in the end, the Weather killed the French and they were never really beaten, they ended up going all the way back out near Poland. Most of his 300 thousand? Army died off. Not sure of the exact size of that invasion force you'd have to research it, but the Death March back from the Heart of Russia was Hell!!! Those French troops went through probably worse than the Germans as their suffering was marching back in Winter all the way on foot! Sort of Symbolic I guess about Evil Regimes, a Godsend that Weather turns out a certian way, politics fall this way or that way, or in the end bad decisions make a campaign a failure?

Actually the T Series Tank is great for Russian frontier but I honestly think that the French Armor was great! Depending on what series, think of if they had updates. Early German armor seemed to lack heavy armament, they aimed more towards mobility and speed. Early Germany Armor for some reason wasn't slopped enough! While most comparitive French Armor was. Even the T series was sorta a bit slopped. The Germans evolved they weren't born with a Great Tank. Think they borrowed from a lot of places, or just their own ingenunity, the early French possessed the best medium tank in the World in 1940

[Liam]

Not versed as much on History as some of the others in here however!!! Evil is true, Germans alienated Russians, Slavs, Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc.. They made enemies out of potential Allies that much is true. I read that in a Anne Frank Museum and was reminded her a few months back, many of the conquored people's of Russia thought they the Germans were liberators! Too bad, Hitler was halfbutt Devil<he doesn't deserve the title of Devil as he was quite as adept as I'd expect that sort of creature to be>

[arax3]

God has, and will intervene in human events. It is not for us to apply our puny efforts at logic and reason to the purposes of our God. Was not Egypt destroyed in the Red Sea? Sodom and Gomorrah were obliterated totally. Jesus came to earth; the Son of God freely gave up his human life for us! Don't be foolish! God is very patient, but his patience will not last forever! This country could not exist under the documents written at the time of its creation as both slave and free. I agree with President Lincoln; we were punished severely for our sins. A3

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

GENERAL COLT

Why do you short change US Armed Forces. In 42 we were kicking the Jap's butts in Guadalcanal, the invincible jungle fighters. In 41 the jap's couldn't take Bataan until Apr of 42. Singapore the Gibralter of the Pacific fell in two weeks.

In 43 after north africa we invaded Sicily, and fought the Herman Georing Division and it retreated to Italy. Only in Tunis did we recieve a bad name, and it was mostly because of bad Generals and not the troops.

Fun to compare...very subjective however.

Why didn't I mention the US vs Japs? The question was about Germany. The PTO was 6 months of Jap expansion against unprepared foe. Followed by 3+years pummeling of a backwards but fierce enemy by the Americans. They werent a modern army.

Correct on Sicily, but we were bloodied at the Gustav Line/Anzio for months, again probably generalship not the GI.

Overy explains the Japanese defeat on 10 bombs, TEN VERY LUCKY BOMBS, in June of 42. I'll add:But not all luck, mostly the heroic action of some mighty brave young pilots. The battle of Midway and Japans failure to developed a self-sealing fuel tank for their planes were the major causes. One or two rounds in a Zeros tank and it was gas everywhere, toss in a glowing tracer round and a it was smoke city. All other nations had these self-sealing fuel tanks.

Also we won the sub war against Japan where Fritz lost the Atlantic U-boot war.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

To Jersey

As always John your masterful. It has always confussed me about captured russian tanks. The Germans used Czech tanks after swallowing up the Sudenland, and french tanks after the glorious fall of frogland, but never Russian T-34's. Never seen any pictures of T-34's with swastika's on them? Strange.

There are a few T-34's with swastika's represented in the CM games. They did use lotsa the USSR 76mm AT guns on various chassis particularly the Marder.

[jon_j_rambo]

My friend's Grandfather was part of the group that won the Congressional Medal of Honor for cracking the Jap's code during the battle of Midway.

[hellraiser]

the war was lost due to the huge economical differences between the two coalitions.

Germany's production couldn't keep up with USSR's production not to mention that of the USA ... The germans' inability to destroy russian economy was the losing factor. It was a war in which quantity mattered a lot.

A lot of bad decisions were taken by both adversaries but if for Germany bad decisions translated into unreplaceable losses, Allies' and USSR's bad decisions were offset by their huge economic potential.

Overall, strategic wise, the Allies and especially USSR were superior to Germans. Dragging Germany in a long attrition war was exactly what USSR needed and they did it brilliantly. They knew Germany wouldn't be able to resist more than a few yers.

The Red Army (especially it's commanders) improved a lot as years passed and after 1943 it was at least on par with German Army from the point of the view of war tactics (they learned the blitz tactics lesson very well from the germans and applied it with devastating effects). Again, at equal tactic skills, the sheer quantity of manpower and war material fielded by the USSR won the war.

[Seawolf]

From Cosmin

"The Red Army (especially it's commanders) improved a lot as years passed and after 1943 it was at least on par with German Army from the point of the view of war tactics (they learned the blitz tactics lesson very well from the germans and applied it with devastating effects). Again, at equal tactic skills, the sheer quantity of manpower and war material fielded by the USSR won the war."

Dear Cosmin

I don't know what kind of history books you get in Bucharest, but Western Military History Books beg to differ. Russian tactic's usually were made up of large amounts of arty followed by mass charges of untrained ivans stiffened with T-34's and NKVD Political Officers. If it didn't work the first time they would follow it up with a second attack. If that didn't work they followed with a third attack, if that didn't work etc. etc.

Russian lost 15 million soldiers, that is an incredable amount of deaths!!!!

German losses on the Eastern front were about 2 million. That's 7.5 to 1. And these odds continued to the end of the war. It took a million russian dead to take Berlin.

Russian equipment is a different story. They had quanity but very little quality. Things that were good: their tanks T-34/85 IS-1s and 2s and the tank destroyers, even though they didn't all have radio's(big mistake), artillery anti-tank guns and rockets, Tank busters IL2s. Crap: rifles, machine guns, trucks, most planes, supplies. The US duce and a half was their favorite vehicle. Along with K-rations.

Life was cheap to the russian mind, you we there for mother russia to use in any way she felt needed. Generals didn't worry about high death reports, only defeat. Sure Marshal Zhukov had victories but at what cost. Any American, German or British General with the same losses would have been canned.

I would hardly call any russian attack a blitzkrieg. German tactics usually had two pincers penitrating up to 200 miles inland, Russian tactics never went that deep. Sure Amry Group Central in 1944 was destroyed, but over a long amount of time, and they had hardly what would be called an Army Group.

I just don't buy it, sorry. Convince me!

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I've mostly found that people that don't like America are jealous of our prosperity. They usually say "we like Americans but not America".

You can't separate the two, America is it's people. If you like the people then you like their country also.

Why the hell would Europeans be jealous of your prosperity??

The Western European nations are just as rich if not richer as the US.

and btw, I have found American citizens to treat people a lot better than their government does.

It's not an American thing, all goverments do this. A nation is not it's people,a government often does things the population doesn't agree with or even doesn't know of.

And you have to remember that the different ethnic,religious,political,... groups of a population almost never agree with each other, so America can never stand for its entire population.

But this really doesn't matter for me since I like most americans and the country itself, I just hate Bush(sr.,jr.)

[ September 02, 2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Roosevelt45(the 2nd) ]

[JerseyJohn]

Roosevelt45 ...

"I just hate Bush(sr.,jr.)"

Despite being hopelessly off topic, I have to admit that's one of the most admirable statements I've read anywhere in a long time! You are not alone in your sentiments, Brother!

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Than you,JJ.

I'll try to stay on topic.

[Seawolf]

Great, President Kerry will shoot spit wads at the terrorist, or say "Now you little terrorist, behave yourselves or after you blowup another 3000 Americans we'll get mad at you and maybe do something really bad against you, like cut off your milk supply"!!!

Americans have nothing to envy out of Europe anymore. The Continent is bankrupt, spiritually, socially, and financially. The English speaking poeple have saved Europe 3 times in the last century, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War. And the Europeans hate us for doing it! All the social programs have underminded the way most people think in Europe, the govenment will do it for us, don't be such a cowboy, the UN will make things right. Well we across the pond are more dubious of Europes way of dealing with terrorism.

Off the subject of coarse.

[JerseyJohn]

"The English speaking poeple have saved Europe 3 times in the last century, WW1, WW2, and the Cold War."

If you ammend that to read, The United States, I'll go along with it.

The English speaking people of the British Isles in 1918 were drafting men of 55 to go die in the trenches. They were spent and so were the French. Germany had won all of Eastern Europe and would have been fine if they had a year or two to peacefully utilize the Russian resources they suddenly had at their dispossal. The same can't be said for their enemies on the Western Front. Without the Doughboys World War One was lost.

Same for World War Two. Take the United States out of the equation and Great Britain, sooner or later, looses. I admire their stamina and will, but unaided they were doomed.

The Cold War? Again, we're talking the United States and not the English Speaking People. Having served during it's height I have memories of looking out at three parks filled with B-52s, each of which carried multiples of all the bombs dropped between 1939 and 45 both in Europe and Asia.

Kerry and terrorists, yeah, that's the Republican line all right. Pure speculation. I dislike the Bush father and son epoch for other reasons. In any case I'm confident that either party will be eaually adept at screwing the average American. Clinton was no better than either of the Bush presidents. They're all a disappointment.

Anyhow all of that belongs in the General Forum Politics Forum, not here.

Probably this thread should be locked now because it's starting to veer off into some sort of Euro-U. S. antagonism and also spintering into American politics.

I'm guilty of lending a hand with that but let's take that hot air to the General Forum, especially it's Political Area, which is where it belongs instead of here.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Seawolf, piss off!

I just want you to know that I think you're absolutely deluded about Europe and our attitude towards the US.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

If you ammend that to read, The United States, I'll go along with it.

The men who helped grind down the German forces on the Western Front in 1914-1918 were from the Commonwealth. The forces that landed in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Normandy were also in large part from the Commonwealth. The spadework towards victory was done on each day from 1914-18, and 1939-45.

[Kin Cole]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

Dear Cosmin

I don't know what kind of history books you get in Bucharest, but Western Military History Books beg to differ.

Um...

Key phrase here being 'Western Military History Books'.

Russian tactic's usually were made up of large amounts of arty followed by mass charges of untrained ivans stiffened with T-34's and NKVD Political Officers. If it didn't work the first time they would follow it up with a second attack. If that didn't work they followed with a third attack, if that didn't work etc. etc.

At first, but as the war progressed and the Russian officers became experienced, they became excellent tacticians.

Saying that they were nothing more than hordes of peasants is German propaganda.

Russian lost 15 million soldiers, that is an incredable amount of deaths!!!!

German losses on the Eastern front were about 2 million. That's 7.5 to 1. And these odds continued to the end of the war. It took a million russian dead to take Berlin.

Those numbers are not fact. They come from the memoirs and recollections of German generals after the war. Numbers get inflated. I'd say 3:1 is more plausible.

Life was cheap to the russian mind, you we there for mother russia to use in any way she felt needed. Generals didn't worry about high death reports, only defeat. Sure Marshal Zhukov had victories but at what cost. Any American, German or British General with the same losses would have been canned.

German armies had losses like that. Hitler saying do not fall back -- what do you think happened when they didn't? It was the same thing.

I just don't buy it, sorry. Convince me!

A good article to read.

[JerseyJohn]

Sirocco

Yes, I said all of that!

I was very clear in saying the United States did not come along and defeat Germany in either war.

What I said is it was the deciding factor in both wars. There's a huge difference.

It would asinine to ignore four years of fighting on the Western, Eastern, Middle East and Italian Fronts befort the U. S. showed up in France at five minutes to midnight!

But -- take the United States out of the equation at the end of World War One and who wins? The French Army was already on the verge of mutiny and the Commonwealth was past exhaustion. With Russia out of it the blocade would have been rendered meaningless and, in addition to huge numbers of Eastern Front Germans being infused into the line, Imperial Germany had the vast potential of recruiting Russians who, unlike twenty years later, had every reason to be sympathetic to the Germans.

And it would be equally asinine to ignore the millions upon millions of Soviet war dead. No, the Untied States didn't pop in out of nowhere and destroy Nazi Germany. But it's limitless supplies to the USSR (most of them through Alaska or Iran) and especially to Great Britain, together with it's huge strategic bombing campaign and the contribution of 100 divisions in Italy and France did more than a little to help swing the balance.

For the record I'm not a deranged flag waver who believes the United States is God's gift to the world. But I don't go to the other extreme either, America bashing is as infantile and idiotic as Euro or any other kind of bashing.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I was very clear in saying the United States did not come along and defeat Germany in either war.

I think you're wrong to assert that either WW1 or WW2 would have been lost without US involvement. You might make a case for stalemate in WW1, but not defeat. And in WW2 the Commonwealth was not beaten before the entrance of the US. It was not on the continent of Europe, but it was absorbing the lessons taught there with a view to return, possibly more closely allied to the Soviet Union without US participation, and it was taking the fight to the German heartlands, at least through Bomber Command.

The Europe that we have today would not have been possible without the combined efforts of men and women of so many different nationalities. Their sacrifice is something that we should not only remember, but honour in the spirit that it was given; not in a singular, nationalistic and bombastic rhetoric, but as a partnership of like-minded people.

[jon_j_rambo]

Where'd this SeaWolf dude come from? Somebody mail him a "Camp Rambo T-Shirt", I like the attitude

[Avatar]

Jesus, this thread went a lot longer than I ever thought it would! Okay, since I'm thread master, I have final say on issues

WW1 would not have been won, indeed, it would have been lost had America not come in the side of the Allies. If you disagree, you haven't read enough about the war. If you think you have read enough, you haven't, so read more.

WW2 would not have been won, indeed, it would have been lost had America not come in the side of the Allies. If you disagree, you haven't read enough about the war. If you think you have read enough, you haven't, so read more.

Oh, and this whole bias between Americans/Europeans is very normal. Been going on for a couple hundred years. No point really getting involved. I will suggest however that the average european gets along better with an average Democrat voting american than Republican voting one. Think Kerry is softer on military than Bush?, not so true. Take a look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040823-kerry-bush-military.htm .

[jon_j_rambo]

Hey Euros: I'm an independent, fundamental, Bible Believing Baptist, NRA member (National Rifle Association), against Abortion (murder is what it really is), Flag Waving, Bush Supporting, Military Saluting...Legend.

I love my country & believe France is an absolute joke & Germany is run by a bunch of fruitcakes. It's as simple as that. We (USA) cannot count on you for our way of life & the protection of Israel. I feel Europe in the majority is anti-Jew today, as your parents & grandparents attack them just a few years ago.

The younger generation Euro tries "be cool" & act all peace-hippie, well, whatever. That might be cool on a college campus, but that ain't life.

Next, I loved to play a Euro in SC very soon.

[jon_j_rambo]

Now, I do like Martin Luther, German Benz, German Shepherd dogs, & I love 99-LuftBallons by Nena. I also like the German chicks at the Epcot center serving the Legend & family frosty brews & brauts. I also like Hogan's Hereos & war movies.

Your soccor is very below average. The only way I'll watch if only if in High Definition & the Brits are burning down the stands or something. For God's sake, you have hands, play a sport that allows using them! Kicking a ball for 3-hours for a 0-0 tie is boring!

NCAA & NFL start now!