Wwii

[scout 0]

ok here are couple of things i know:

1. britain saved the critical mass of its army in dunkirk so there wasnt any chance of invading even if the germans succeeded to disable the RAF.

2. what turned the war in the eastern front was mainly two things: putting Zhukov as a commander in the southern front and bringing 1.5 mil seasoned and winter equiped soldiers from siberia.

3. i agree that the germans could push farther if they started earlier but all it would get them was a delay. the USSR had already redeployed its gov. and major industry in the Ural line.

4.the germans had real problem with their lines of supply. they just werent ready for the huge problems. the USSR didnt have a developed road and rail systems then.

5. the partisans were a major problem, holding more then 0.5mil axis troops for security.

6. the amount of troops germany used in this op was larger then the amout of troops they had in western europe!

thats it 4 now

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I agree with some of the points. But the mayor fucker who is to blame for losing in Russia was stupid Hitler himself. He thought he would know more about war than all the generals together, so he didnt listen to them but simply ordered. I dont know how often he commanded his generals: your soldiers must fight to the last bullet and the last drop of blood! And so it was!

I am happy that this war was lost, but it was an expensive bill the germans had to pay in Russia!

Being slightly arrogant I may say that the ones of you who havent seen films like Winterwar or Stalingrad have absolutely no idea how cruel life was on the Eastern-front. Figures and Facts dont quite help! Therefore all those strategic advices and analyses you give may work maybe for the Poland offensive or whatever, but please dont be smart-ass and apply them to battles like Stalingrad. When I was 13 I got a slap from my oncle, who is a Stalingrad veteran, because I dared to tell him my idea of how some of the battles could have been won. "Silly me"

[scout 0]

well, what do u want. hitler was a corporal, and as i recall from my service, every corporal thought himself a genius!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Some are and some arent!

[Tydium 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

well, what do u want. hitler was a corporal, and as i recall from my service, every corporal thought himself a genius!

<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler wasn't a corporal. He was a lance corporal.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ April 18 2002,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

well, what do u want. hitler was a corporal, and as i recall from my service, every corporal thought himself a genius!

<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler wasn't a corporal. He was a lance corporal.<span id='postcolor'>

The yoke from Scout still was funny. And you cant do anything against it !

[Wobble 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ April 18 2002,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

well, what do u want. hitler was a corporal, and as i recall from my service, every corporal thought himself a genius!

<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler wasn't a corporal. He was a lance corporal.<span id='postcolor'>

He was a mono-nutted shitbag with shit burping herpies..

his 3 grandest mistakes were

A: fucking with russia.. despite them being darkaged compared to germany (for the most part) stalin was so callous he didnt mind simply outnumbering bullets with men "if you do not have a rifle follow a man who does, when he is killed, take his rifle"

B: declaring war on US and bring it and its industrial system into the war.. cost him most all of his u-boats too..

C: laying off the RAF to attack london.. this gave the RAF time to recoop and smashed any chance he may of had of taking it out...

and if he had and germany had uncontested air superiority over britian.. I dont see how it could have sustained regardless of troop numbers..

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

his 3 grandest mistakes were

A: fucking with russia.. despite them being darkaged compared to germany (for the most part) stalin was so callous he didnt mind simply outnumbering bullets with men "if you do not have a rifle follow a man who does, when he is killed, take his rifle"

B: declaring war on US and bring it and its industrial system into the war..  cost him most all of his u-boats too..

C: laying off the RAF to attack london.. this gave the RAF time to recoop and smashed any chance he may of had of taking it out...

and if he had and germany had uncontested air superiority over britian.. I dont see how it could have sustained regardless of troop numbers..<span id='postcolor'>

Simple said but I agree.  ; How mad must one be, to continue doing war after you have beaten your greatest opponent for centuries and owning half of europe!

[scout 0]

well wobble, in order to make a succesful invasion u need amph ships, and in order to invade britain u need alot of them, air supieriority wont do, and the germans didnt have the ability to sustain an aircover over britain 24 hrs a day.

in short, the surface navy of the germans was a joke.

they didnt even manage to control the med!

BTW Albert: my grandmother was a partisan. boy, what hairy tales she got! i'd say she has more balls then half of the soldiers today!

[Satchel 0]

"1.. britain saved the critical mass of its army in dunkirk so there wasnt any chance of invading even if the germans succeeded to disable the RAF."

Hmm, unconventional point of view, as air superioty was and is an decive point in any conflict.

Air superioty enables own troops to conduct large combined arms troop movements, attacking at will, while the enemy is either pinned down, forced into an defensive or evasive state, or is destroyed when trying to attack/reinforce/relocate etc, especially true for heavy equipment.

Air superioty means also that vital supply lines of the enemy are going to be destroyed, so even the strongest fortifications will become useless at some point if no food, ammunition and replacements will arrive.

When the enemy has air superioty the odds to win a battle are more worse than desireable, as most of your units are going to be decimated before they can even reach the "frontline" and engage the opponent.

With air superioty and good weather you basically control the battlefield.

The counterattack attempt of the germans in the Ardennes is a good example, and shows the effect of how important air superioty is in terms of deciding a battle.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 18 2002,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well wobble, in order to make a succesful invasion u need amph ships, and in order to invade britain u need alot of them, air supieriority wont do, and the germans didnt have the ability to sustain an aircover over britain 24 hrs a day.

in short, the surface navy of the germans was a joke.

they didnt even manage to control the med!<span id='postcolor'>

No, the germans never intended to invade England with ships! They didnt have many of those anyway. They simply wanted to bomb out all english courage and make them sign a treaty! All the ships the germans had were a few fishing-boats which had been transformed into landingships! And those ships were never realy used, they just wanted to make the impression as if the GREAT GERMAN INVASION was just a couple of seconds to go!

[scout 0]

sathcel: in order to have air-supiriority, u need to able to maintain it above the battle field. that was the weakest point with the germans. they couldnt do it, simply not enough airplanes (in order to do it the allies used more then 5000 planes on the western front alone)

and as i said before, in order to invade u need amph. ships.

simple as that. if u dont have em, no amout of planes would help you.

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sathcel: in order to have air-supiriority, u need to able to maintain it above the battle field. that was the weakest point with the germans. they couldnt do it, simply not enough airplanes (in order to do it the allies used more then 5000 planes on the western front alone)

and as i said before, in order to invade u need amph. ships.

simple as that. if u dont have em, no amout of planes would help you<span id='postcolor'>

The ME-109 was able to fly only limited cover for Bombers or diverbombers over britain before the pilot had to return to France or wherever his base was located.

The bombers themselves had far more time over target, now without the threat of aerial interception those formations virtually would have had the freedom of movement to conduct whatever operation wherever, as long as their fuel permits.

If the RAF had been destroyed on the ground, as the original plan had been, the Luftwaffe could have concentrated fully on disabling the british Navy, coast fortifications, industry and basically prepare the invasion.

With air superioty operation Seelöwe would have begun as the aerial battle was meant to prepare it, the major point to abandon the plan was the failure of the Luftwaffe in the battle over Britain, this utmost important goal was prerequisite to conduct such an invasion.

More than 100.000 german soldiers stood ready in france for the first wave of the invasion, with over 4000 ships and boats. A great deal of the german Navy was also amassed in Norway, they would have been needed to divert to france, but as the Luftwaffe failed in gaining air superioty this was not an option anymore.

[scout 0]

satchel: read what albert wrote. nice numbers on papers, but the ability to conduct such op were existant.

BTW. remember that northern englad and irland were outside the range. so actually the brits could maintain a pretty orderly buildup there, which they did. the main factories were also there.

there was no real way to gain airsupiriority without aircraft carriers. no matter how u twist it, the german ability to gain air supiriority over englad was non-existant without bases in england, which couldnt be done without REAL navy, and air cover, which couldnt be done..........

what was important for the invasion wasnt the bombers. it was all those fighter bombers, and the dive bombers that didnt have the range to support the invasion.

without an ME-109 and Stukas, there wouldnt be any way to make use of the air supiriority.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 18 2002,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">satchel: read what albert wrote. nice numbers on papers, but the ability to conduct such op were existant.

BTW. remember that northern englad and irland were outside the range. so actually the brits could maintain a pretty orderly buildup there, which they did. the main factories were also there.

there was no real way to gain airsupiriority without aircraft carriers. no matter how u twist it, the german ability to gain air supiriority over englad was non-existant without bases in england, which couldnt be done without REAL navy, and air cover, which couldnt be done..........

what was important for the invasion wasnt the  bombers. it was all those fighter bombers, and the dive bombers that didnt have the range to support the invasion.

without an ME-109 and Stukas, there wouldnt be any way to make use of the air supiriority.<span id='postcolor'>

Satchel, I must admit I am pretty confused by your numbers. I watched a long series a few days ago (called "history" / what else) and there they showed nothing about the great invasion. The germans did have pretty much air superiority. They were kicked badly at the beginning and once during their attacks of london. Especially due to the fact that the brits (the germans called them indians, and the brits called the german pilots bandits) had a very sophisticated system of pre-alarming once german planes arrived on the borders of the island. So afterwards they decided only to bomb at night. But they did bomb everynight, without exception. The fighters (Stukka I think) did in fact have a big problem, they couldnt defend the bombers the whole way because the fuel not sufficient! Hitler however did order them to stay with the bombers until they petrol was used up and until the motor of the plane turns off. Many goos pilots died because of this stupid order! England was very important for the Americans and the germans could not take with the planes. Their plan simply was, bomb untill England surrenders, cause an invasion appeared impossible!

[Wobble 1]

I think britian would have been in a REAL heap if they lost all air power because they were already more or less under seige..

being under airattack is one theing.. being under airattack with no realistic way to replenish the supplies you lose is a whole different matter.

[KingBeast 0]

I read that the Stukas that missions to England were pretty useless because they got completely hammered by brit planes.

And yeah if Britain lost air power, we would have been in a shitty situation. I guess Hitler would have asked us to join him (isnt that what he wanted all along??) And of course the invasion would commence soon enough. Though I think the Germies would have been given a VERY hard time. Cant even begin to imagine how our people would react under german occupation.

[Hardliner 0]

Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France. He got chocky thinking he could take Poland after rolling into Austria and the Studentland. Oh and the Rhur if thats spelled right probably not. He was gambling and hoping that Britain and France would not stop him. Even after Britain declared war Hitler made several unsuccessful attempts to get England on his side, telling them that their Empire would be secure if they aknowlaged Germany had a free hand in Europe but they just would not do it. Hitler was not after the West but his enemy was to the East, Russia, Communism. Later America would be facing the same enemy in a Cold War.

I know about the partisans and yes it would be impossible to control a country like this. When the Germans first arrived in certain cities in USSR and the Baltic states the German troops were actually welcomed at first, they also made it look like they were "liberating" the people there from the evil of communism and at that time it looked all fine. However the regular German units pushed on eastward and the SS and Gestapo followed making it clear that they were not there to liberate them, but to eradicate.

I have seen this movie Stalingrad and it didn't show heros rushing enemy postions like other movies do. It showed soldiers under extreme conditions with orders to "hold to the last" in a hopeless situtation, being turned on by their OWN officers and leadership. Same thing on the Russian side.

Hitler made many mistakes in that war. He had himself to blame really. Thing is he blamed the German people for "failing" him which I think is pretty shit. Even if he didn't attack USSR they might have still attacked him later on a few years down the track. Altho Stalin had "cleaned" out his military leadership sending his officers to the gulags and killing them. Just one thing that made it hard for Russia at first in 1941.