Kingfish Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chashm: I think the battle for Moscow would have been different. Mussolini's ill fated venture into the Balkans threw Barbarossa off schedule. No Musso, No Balkans, No Balkans, Barbarossa starts on time which gets them to Moscow before the snows. I disagree. The reason for Germany's delay in launching Barbarossa had more to do with the invasion of Yugoslavia (which was due to a pro-allied faction overthrowing the pro-axis goverment in a coup) and Greece (which was a response to the British landings) than anything Italy was doing in Albania. These came at a time when Germany was preparing for Barbarossa, and the threat to her southern flank (as well as the Ploesti oilfields) prompted her to invade these two countries. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siege Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 The United States was gathering experience at a very quick rate in terms of amphibous operations in the Pacific regardless of the absence of Torch and I know there is going to be disagreement on this but I think that most of the amphib experience did indeed came from the Pacific and not the Med.The unfortunate part of that is the fact that the Marine Corps were the ones gaining all the amphib experience and never contributed to any of the European landings. While they were developing specialized hardware, air support doctrine, fire support doctrine and all sorts of valuable experience, almost none of it was used at Normandy. General Marshal made sure that "No Marines will be in Europe", which left all that valuable experience in the Pacific. -Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 That's pretty close to the truth, however the US Navy was writing up all this stuff and some of it did reach Europe, only too late as you say to effect the Normandy landings. Keep in mind that most of the big Pacific landings occurred after D-Day. Prior to that, most of them were shore to shore (meaning from one Solomon Island to another or one part of New Guinea to another or to one of the Admiralties) rather than ship to shore. I think Bougainville was the first really big ship to shore landing. BTW, it wasn't just the Marines. They got Guadalcanal and the Gilberts, but the Army landed on New Georgia, New Guinea (in more than one operation), the Admiralties, and Bougaineville. The Marshals were shared between the Army and the Marines. So were the Mariannas. Leyte was Army, Iwo Jima Marines, and Okinawa shared. The Marines got Pelliliu on the way to Leyte. I probably have skipped a few operations (the Aussies did Borneo and of course did much of the fighting on New Guinea), but I think you can see the pattern. It wasn't just the Marines who were fighting their way ashore. Michael [ October 24, 2003, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 A while ago I actually took a look at the breakdown of American amphib. ops in the Pacific, and it is almost 50/50 Army/Marines with maybe a little more for the Marines. [ October 24, 2003, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrigo Velicogna Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 I I was Mussolini on the verge of Dunkirk my chiches where very limited: 1st Version (no crystal ball): My army was't bad (good tanks for the period, good navy, biggest air force of europe); France was almost done, England short on the list, Soviet Union allied with Berlin and USA isolationist thus or I will oppose Hitler in a war without allies or I will strike fast France, hope that England will yeld to a negotiated peace and thus grab some prestige maybe a little land and continue business as usual. After a quicke rview I will go for option B. 2) (with crystal ball). My armed forces are losing their technical advantege. My mediumn tanks are good for the moment but we don't have any capability to improve them. The air force number are impressive but some crazy guys at the Air Ministry has stopped all work on liquid cooled engines thus depriving us of any chanche to have fighters capable to match the next generation machines without outside help and my pilots are too aerobatic instead of energy management oriented. War will be long. Hitler isn't going to invade England, England isn't bound to a settlment, Hitler will invade soviet Union, USA will enter the War. Solution mantain neutrality and enter the war after Overlord obn allied side. Arrigo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Well even with hindsight, Mussolini had such a bloated ego he'd probably just try a new and improved way to attempt to recreate the Roman Empire and failed. The Romans started their Empire by winning battles and wars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Or then again, who knows right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.