At 3/1/05 10:16 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/1/05 04:17 PM, Andersson wrote:
Take one atomic bomb over an evacuated Hiroshima and say 120k. Is that effective?

It was more like 50k.

My bad. In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and another 17 000 within four months.

My bad. =(

What does that have to do with anything? Hitler didn't use the V1's and V2's to attack military targets. Sure, if he had successfully launched heavy V2 attacks against southern England the D-Day forces would have been weakened, but the rockets weren't even used for that. Though it was speculated that the rockets could have contained biological or nuclear weapons, no V1 or V2 rocket was ever equipped with either. They were sent against British population centres in retribution for the massive Allied bombings against Germany. Also, I'm sure you know that the V2 rocket later had mobile launching stations that were positioned within range of England and Northern France until several months after the D-Day landings.

The German army was weakened by one million men in 1941 against the Soviet Union. In 1942, it lost the entire 6th Army - among the best and most professional units of the Wehrmacht - at Stalingrad, along with enough equipment to supply a third of the whole German Army. Shortly afterwards, the Germans regrouped and counter attacked. The Waffen SS was able to recapture Kharkov, the fourth-largest city in the Soviet Union. This provided a tantalizing taste of what could be accomplished through mobile war.

Hoping to repeat his success at Kharkov, Hitler ordered 'Operation Citidel' to be carried out against the Kursk salient in 1943. Nearly one million German soldiers were massed for the attack, as were most of the new German tanks such as the Tiger, Panther, and Elephant. However, he waited too long to build up forces, thusly allowing the Soviets time to build massive defenses (since they were well aware of the German plans).

The Germans were effectively destroyed at the Battle of Kursk. After that battle was lost, the Germans lacked the strategic reseverves to launch another major attack in Russia. With the initiative now definitively transferred to the Soviets, the German army could hope to do no better than to 'stem the Red Tide.' They were failing to contain the Russian advance for at least a year before D-Day, which did little more than to compound an already fatal problem.

D-Day was followed up by Operation Market-Garden, which was a spectacular failure. Had it not been for the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans could have held the Western Allies off for another six months at least. The failure of the Battle of the Bulge was due mostly to the shortcomings of the Wehrmacht as a result of 3 and some years of war with the Soviets, who by now had also cut off the Germans' main oil supply at Ploesti. The shortage of, and eventual total lack of fuel was the critical blow to the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge.

The Soviets were granted the responsibility of taking Berlin, by the way, and the Germans certainly would not have surrendered until Berlin fell. The Soviets lost 100, 000 men to take that city alone, which would have been devastating casualties to the Western Allies.

America unequivocally won the war with Japan, but the war in Europe was won more by the Soviets than any other combatant.

At 3/26/05 07:23 AM, Jerconjake wrote: What does that have to do with anything? Hitler didn't use the V1's and V2's to attack military targets. Sure, if he had successfully launched heavy V2 attacks against southern England the D-Day forces would have been weakened, but the rockets weren't even used for that. Though it was speculated that the rockets could have contained biological or nuclear weapons, no V1 or V2 rocket was ever equipped with either. They were sent against British population centres in retribution for the massive Allied bombings against Germany. Also, I'm sure you know that the V2 rocket later had mobile launching stations that were positioned within range of England and Northern France until several months after the D-Day landings.

Errr... The thing I said was that they did never end the project of moving the launch site underground, that is the reason to why they never did attack with their ful strenght. The "blockhause" could launch an incredible number of V2 rockets (I'm ashamed that I can't remember the number of launches they could have per hour). =(

Anyway, these "blockhauses" were all destroyed after the D-Day, which means that they were still building them after the D-Day and they were still a major threat for the allied troops.

Shortly afterwards, the Germans regrouped and counter attacked. The Waffen SS was able to recapture Kharkov, the fourth-largest city in the Soviet Union. This provided a tantalizing taste of what could be accomplished through mobile war.

But the mobile war in Sovjet were nothing to brag about for the German's part though they lost the war in the Sovjet winter. Mobile war at those great distances were not good.

Hoping to repeat his success at Kharkov, Hitler ordered 'Operation Citidel' to be carried out against the Kursk salient in 1943. Nearly one million German soldiers were massed for the attack, as were most of the new German tanks such as the Tiger, Panther, and Elephant. However, he waited too long to build up forces, thusly allowing the Soviets time to build massive defenses (since they were well aware of the German plans).

Hehe. Funny of you to bring up the "Elephant", their wide tracks were a huge mistake even if they had to have them though the turret was so heavy. But though the tank crew also had to repair something like that on their own, a "Elephant" were easily taken out through shooting on their tracks.

Yeah, Hitler waited too long while increasing his strenght though the
Sovjet army increased more.

The shortage of, and eventual total lack of fuel was the critical blow to the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge.

The lack of fuel were the critical blow for German in the whole war against Sovjet. All wars or attacks going deep into Sovjet has ended with that the attackers had runned out of food, ammunition or oil in this case. The Sovjet troops does often burn down everything in their lands there the enemy will move forward through. Good tactic, but not very nice for the civil population.

America unequivocally won the war with Japan, but the war in Europe was won more by the Soviets than any other combatant.

True. But again, this was about that U.S.A. et cetera could have won in Europe without Sovjet. Sovjet still did ALOT, but could U.S.A. have sent a atomic bomb and won through doing that? And how much more couldn't U.S.A. assisted with?

Just something we've been discussing.
Thanks anyway for your knowledge about the second world war.

I hope we could end this case about who did what and just continue with posting FACTS as the one I posted about the V2 rockets "blockhause".

Ha! I have given you facts. Ever heard of Erich von Manstein? He was one of the best generals Germany ever had. He knew that with a smaller, but better trained force, the best chance of victory in Russia was a mobile war. That's the very nature of Blitzkrieg, since you don't allow your enemy time to regroup and defend itself. After Kharkov, Manstein wanted to keep advacing and not allow the Soviets time to regroup. Instead, Hitler intervened and ordered him to halt. Mobile war did present great difficulties, especially in Russia, but anything else was an assurance of defeat for Germany.

I know what you're saying about the danger of the blockhauses. What I am saying is that the V rockets had virtually no bearing on the outcome of the war, because of how they were used. It is unlikely that even if the blockhaus project had been completed that the Germans would have changed their strategy in the use of the Rockets.

The biggest flaw of the Elephant was the fact that it had no machine gun mounted on it. The Soviet troops were able to keep German supporting infantry away from the Elephants with constant maching gun fire. Without infantry support, the Elephant was helpless and Soviet troops simply jumped onto them and knocked them out. I never said that these tanks were good, what I mean is that he waited too long for technology that didn't deliver.

True, fuel shortages were a problem for Germany. However, it was not until their only oil supply at Ploesti was removed from them that the problem was fatal.

The Americans would not have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany. The American public wanted revenge on Japan for Pearl Harbor, and it was seen that taking the Japanese mainland would have resulted in appalling casualties. Moreover, Japan was seen as savage and foreign. It would have been a much more bold move to use the bomb in Europe. Bombing Germany was one thing, the people felt that it was justified for the Blitz of England, but atomic bombs are something else.

You mean could the Americans have won the war in Europe without any Soviet help at all? Absolutely not. If, for whatever reason, the Germans weren't at war with the Soviets, England would have been the only weak point. The German war industry would have responded to the Allied bombing campaigns if that was the most critical threat. If all the German troops that were in Russia in 1941 were free to be used in France, there would have been absolutely no hope for D-Day.

At 3/26/05 08:00 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Ha! I have given you facts.

I know that you've given me facts, but what I talked about was battles which you can't know what would happend with though they never were fought. Like if U.S.A. would have launched atomic bombs when they were threathed to fight in their own country.
That is what I want to put down, I don't want anything more as I trying to convince you and you trying to convince me.

I know what you're saying about the danger of the blockhauses. What I am saying is that the V rockets had virtually no bearing on the outcome of the war, because of how they were used. It is unlikely that even if the blockhaus project had been completed that the Germans would have changed their strategy in the use of the Rockets.

The Germans would use them to continue bombing cities and military objects.

The biggest flaw of the Elephant was the fact that it had no machine gun mounted on it.

The "Elephant" had one 7.92 mm MG34 machine-gun.

The Americans would not have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany.

I think they would if whole Europe had surrender. But who knows...

Anyway, I won't speculate more about that. But please continue posting facts! =)

Only the rebuilt Elephants were equipped with that machine gun, when the Germans realized the problem.

At 2/27/05 03:12 PM, Andersson wrote:

At 2/27/05 02:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: And we had achieved Air dominance, which can't really be atributed to the Soviets at all.

That is true. Hitler was moody and wanted a word in everything. He loved the bombers and did never put any effort in fighters, so he realized to late that he would lose the air dominance though the allied forces produced way more fighters than they did. Hitler's idea was to only use the airplanes for bombing, but he would have had alot more fighters to protect the bombers. But he didn't build those fighters, and the air dominance were lost.

No, you're an idiot. Oh surprise surprise.

Aside from the Stuka line of divebombers, some fighter-bombers like the Me110, and the strategic bomber He111, the Germans produced almost no bombers. Barely any. They put almost all of their air production into fighters- hence the feared 109Gs, Fw190s, etc. German fighters were extremely well developed, they were the best Boom & Zoom fighters of the war.

At 4/25/05 11:55 AM, Legovski wrote: They put almost all of their air production into fighters- hence the feared 109Gs, Fw190s, etc. German fighters were extremely well developed, they were the best Boom & Zoom fighters of the war.

I am afraid you are very wrong.

He's not wrong. Air forces are not my specialty, but I do know that Germany put a lot of its efforts into developing better fighters than the Allies. Of course the problem with this was the same one they had with their tanks: they simply couldn't produce them in enough quantity to compete. I also know that these fighter developments actually came at the expense of the bombers, since they never really surpassed their medium range bombers. This was one main reason why Stalin was able to move Soviet industry out of the range that the Luftwaffe could strike it.

On another note, I have a general question: Do you think that the German army could have won the war on the Eastern Front if they had won the Battle of Kursk?

Is it really fair to overlook the French efforts in that war? They had a lot to do with the war from it's preconception till the end. The Maginote line wasn't just a squiggle on the map people. I've enjoyed making fun of the French as a war power... but seriously, despite their supposedly easy defeat, they played a pivotal role.

No, If they won Kursk it may have just dragged the war on a little more after that. After Citadel the Germans would have had little steam left to mount anything bigger than that considering the catastrophic loses they suffered at Kursk.

Lol, The French played a decisive role in what? Eating up German bullets?
Honestly, They did very little, people do bring it down to absolutly nothing, but that is very close to what they really did do. You can't say the French Resistance did anything too huge...just small tedious things.

At 4/25/05 10:46 PM, Jerconjake wrote: He's not wrong.

In my opinion and view at the subject. And with my view at the facts he is.

Air forces are not my specialty, but I do know that Germany put a lot of its efforts into developing better fighters than the Allies.

They started to develope the fighters like in the late 1943. It was unnesseccary then because they had already lost the airfominance, more or less.

They started develope (Develope is not the same thing as producing) new kind of fighters. Hitler loved the bombers. He didn't look at the Luftwaffe more than like a bunch of harmless pilots which he kept only for making his generals happy. In other or better words; He did not put any effort in the fighters. He wanted the bombers.

When the airdominance surely was going to be lost, his generals got him to realise the need of bombers. So they started develope fighters.

One new kind of fighters they developed were the jet-planes. Some carried target seeking air-to-air missiles.
Those were also the first in the world.

One type of aircraft they developed were used as a rammer- It could be separeted into two parts. The front part were the cockpit, and the part in the back were the engine.

The aircraft aimed it's flight into a enemy aircraft and then when it was close enough to continue without a pilot the pilot separated the aircraft and the cockpit fell down to the ground atached to a parachute, while the engine continued it's flight right into the enemy aircraft.

Though they just had discovered the jet-engine they also tried to develope a jet-plane.

One were a tiny light-weighted fighter which carried those air-to-air missiles which I spoke about. But though the engine was so powerful and the aircraft so light, it was going too fast. So when the aircraft aimed the rockets into the enemy there were not enough time to rise from the colidition course and the two planes crashed into eachother.

Another were a strange idea. They built a fighter which looked like a boat. It carried heavyweight bombs and flow over the enemy bomber and dropped some bombs on it.

Another idea were a jetplane which were larger than the other one. That plane had eight (If I remeber everything all right now) air-to-air missiles and worked quite well in battle.

But the war ended to early for many of those ideas to ever be tested. They made hugh progress but they never got time and resources enough to get through with the ideas.

At 3/17/05 11:14 PM, obie1kenobie wrote: In italy everyone screwed up except the Italians

Come on. If there has ever been a incompetent henchman acting for an evil genius, its Italy. They couldn't do anything right. You were right though. In the end it was best to get rid of mussolini.

But if the Italians had been more.....no.....MUCH more effective they wouldnt have screwed up against GREECE thus the Germans wouldnt have had to postpone their invasion to come help them. This eariler invasion would have avoided the Russian Winter.....which is COLD, dude....and they may have succeeded in conquering the Soviet Union. A lot of this is 'if' i know. But my main point....the Italians,the Germans own allies, were probably a factor themselves for why the Allies won.

Oh and come one you Americans and Brits. WE WON THIS WAR TOGETHER! Lets show a little unity. We are allies after all

First of all, the Maginot Line protected Germany better than France because the French all but refused to advance beyond its protection. Therefore, the Germans were able to conquer Poland without French interference. They could not have withstood the French for long in the west while they were subduing Poland. Free French forces did help in some major campaigns, but I've never heard reports that their performance was anything noteworthy, unlike the fantastic New Zealand and Indian forces that fought under the British.

Secondly, I agree that the Germans couldn't have won the war if they had won Kursk. I do think, however, that their options for 1944 would have been tremendously better, and they therefore could have pushed the Allies back out of Italy, and perhaps even prevented the success of the Normandy landings. However, the overall outcome was still going to be the same no matter how much the Soviets lost, so it's probably a good thing that the Germans failed with Citadel and saved at least half of Germany and western Europe from Soviet occupation.

The invasion of Russia was postponed for Operation Retribution, the German plan to invade Yugoslavia, not Greece. Yugoslavia had a Nazi puppet government, but a popular uprising in Belgrade pushed them out. Soon, the new government of Yugoslavia signed a pact with Moscow ensuring strong ties. I believe it was the very next day that the Germans invaded Yugoslavia. You were absolutely right in the point that this would have bought the Germans time, five weeks in all, for their invasion of Russia. The Wehrmacht would certainly have been in Moscow by then, but there is no assurance that they wouldn’t have suffered in the same way that they did at Stalingrad. Furthermore, we don’t know that the Soviets would have surrendered with the fall of Moscow, so Hitler may have simply appeared very much like Napoleon did.

Lastly, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Russia won World War Two in Europe, and America and Britain merely quickened the pace at which the Germans lost it.

An interesting point about how the capture of Moscow would not have defeated the Russians. When Napoleon invaded Russia he managed to get to Moscow....only to find that the Russians had burnt it down in order to deny the French invaders any resources to keep them going. I know this may not exactly apply to the WWII situation but it shows that th Russians are resiliant and, most importantly they are used to the Russian Winter. Would five weeks really have made all the difference? I think a useful note to potential future world leaders would be this: Don't invade Russia, its just not worth the hassle. And if you insist, do it well before the Winter.

I think the Russians may have been the main factor to end the war in Europe, but the fact that the Germans had two forces closing down on them from either side stretched their forces. If theyd only had one front to deal with....well, who knows.

Oh and I think if the Italians had been more competent then they wouldve helped more in the NOrth Africa campaign and perhaps they wouldve broken the British before US intervention. But thats too unpredictable for me.

Its all 'if' work but thats what makes history fun, i suppose.

What about the Japanese, they were the ones that bombed us in the first place. We wouldnt of jumped in at that point if it wasnt for them.

Since this post is about WWII Strategies, I was wondering if I could ask you this. Remember the Battle of the Bulge? I was wondering what went wrong in the German attack, because it appears that the Germans weren't able to advance toward their intended objectives because of the famous 101st Airborne Division (I think also the 82nd, please correct me if I'm wrong) which held its positions stubbornly despite the Germans repeated attacks from all around them ( I do believe they were surronded). Please do tell guys.

The Battle of the Bulge was Hitler's last major offensive operation. It's goal was to slice the Western Allies in half by moving through the Ardennes Forest, as the Germans had done to conquer France 4 years before. Ultimately, the attack was to swing north and capture the port of Antwerp, denying the Allied armies a supply port critical to their advance into Germany. Moreover, the attack would cut off most of the British Expeditionary Force, which was situated north of the Ardennes. Hitler hoped that success in this operation would give him the breathing room he needed to stop the Russians. To this end, the Germans massed nearly a million men and many hundreds of tanks and even some aircraft.

On the first day of the attack, the Allied armies were caught by surprise and the Germans enjoyed encouraging success. However, as you mentioned, a town called Bastogne was stubbornly held by the surrounded 101st Airborne. Bastogne had, I believe, six major roads leading through it that would have been critical for the movement of German armor and supplies. The town had to be captured quickly because the German tanks were not vulnerable to Allied air superiority while a dense fog sat on the tops of the trees.

Though the Germans were able to advance several hundred miles towards the sea, they were quite some distance from their main objective when they were forced to stop due to a lack of fuel. On Christmas day, the fog lifted and the German tanks in the spearhead were sitting ducks for Allied fighter/bombers. The attack resulted in a bulge in the lines, which gave the battle its popular name. Hitler had weakened his defenses in the East to go ahead with this attack, and shortened the whole war by perhaps six months.

At 4/30/05 11:59 AM, Catsofthebase wrote: What about the Japanese, they were the ones that bombed us in the first place. We wouldnt of jumped in at that point if it wasnt for them.

Actually, that attack only put America at war with Imperial Japan. The House of Representatives or whatever you guys have down there was against war with Germany, while Roosevelt was for it. What surely would have been long and heated debate was cut short only a few days after Pearl Harbor when Hitler declared war on the United States, the only time he declared his intent to make war.

Well, all I'm glad is that the War Saw Pact failed during the first war. I'd rather not be speaking russian under a belltower right now.

Haha, The Warsaw Pact didn't exist in the First World War. That way after World War Two.

At 5/4/05 08:51 PM, Sebestien wrote: Well, all I'm glad is that the War Saw Pact failed during the first war. I'd rather not be speaking russian under a belltower right now.

LOL
Wow, Your a smart one. Warsaw pact didn't invade any west countries...So even if they didn't fail, ( At what I might add ) You wouldn't be speaking Russia under a belltower.
GG

Alright, here's another one:

Do you think the Germans could have won the war in Russia if they had won Stalingrad, and why or why not?

Stalingrad was nothing but the Verdun of WWII, a meatgrinder. The Russians could afford the casualities, the Germans couldnt. I bet some high commander did that on purpose, make it into a wasting battle like that so the Germans could get held up like that and whittled down.

I think they may have won if they didn get involved in Stalingrad. That was just no the battle they should have been fighting. Ehh, thats Corporal Hitler for you.

Haha yeah, that's him.

But Stalingrad was the only city in Russian control on the western bank of the Volga. If they had that city, they could have transfered Sixth Army to the south and possibly captured the Caucusus oilfields. That would have meant that they could support many more tanks than the Russians could, and would also limit the amount of tanks that the Russians could have supported. The T-34 was only successful because of the quantity produced, so if the Russians couldn't support as many, the Germans may have been able to destroy Russian ability to resist in 1942 and 1943. If he was desperate, Stalin was willing to pursue peace with the Germans in order to hold on to power, so it's possible that the Germans could have won in this scenario. I really want to hear other people's opinions though.

Just look at the production numbers. The Russians were just making to many tanks, everything. Speer was doing a valiant job of producing as many tank and such as he could. But it really didnt matter. The Germans had 1, maybe 2 at most (dont really think so), years to win against the Russians. They got held up. Loss.

And if the Germans really cared about war, they should have delayed the invasion of Russia, not made their venure into Yugoslavia (I think it was) for grain and whatever and secured North Africa and not left Rommel out to dry. If they would have got Suez also, that would have helped tons.

So, to sum it all up again, gettin stuck in Stalingrad was the final straw. It took to long, should have been bypassed or withdrawn from once they realized it was gonna be a long battle, whatever. Stalingrad was the biggest mistake of the war. They sacrificed their mobility and superior tactics in a pissing match.

At 5/9/05 01:30 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: And if the Germans really cared about OIL

My mistake :(

At 5/9/05 01:30 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: And if the Germans really cared about war, they should have delayed the invasion of Russia, not made their venure into Yugoslavia (I think it was) for grain and whatever and secured North Africa and not left Rommel out to dry. If they would have got Suez also, that would have helped tons.

Delaying the invasion of Russia would only have ensured that Russian strength would continue to build. I've seen Soviet officials confess that they were always told that the first shot would be first on enemy territory. This means that if the Germans didn't attack, they would have been attacked. They didn't attack Yugoslavia for grain. Rommel's purpose in North Africa was to secure it. I don't think anyone thought that it would take as long as it did or tie up as many forces and supplies as it did. Their intention was never to capture or cross the Suez Canal, but even if they had, it would have taken substantially more forces to secure Middle Eastern oilfields than Hitler was able to, or prepared to commit to that arena.

So, to sum it all up again, gettin stuck in Stalingrad was the final straw. It took to long, should have been bypassed or withdrawn from once they realized it was gonna be a long battle, whatever. Stalingrad was the biggest mistake of the war. They sacrificed their mobility and superior tactics in a pissing match.

Yes, good point. They definately sacrified those things to capture that city, and the Sixth Army wasn't used to that kind of fighting. I think that if the name and symbolism of the city had been anything else, Hitler would have realized those things. He was never too keen to capture territory as much as to destroy enemy forces in the field.

I've seen Soviet officials confess that they were always told that the first shot would be FIRED* on enemy territory. Sorry, my mistake this time.

America never droped any fliars or warning papers in hiroshima nad nagasaki you idiot. that shit is what they teach in american middle schools as part of the propoganda machine. the fact of the matter is the manhatan project showed perfectly the extent of the damage the bomb would do, and this was still no cause for concern in the american mentality.

End result ? 500 000 civilians dead.