132 replies to this topic

[7th_Panzer]

Actually, creator, check your facts and context:

1. The Germans had used tactical bombers in a strategic role starting with the Battle of Britain. Had they fielded a bomber relatively equivalent to the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24, England would have been worse off and perhaps beaten decisively.

2. The Germans put to sea several small 'pocket battleships' - which in practice were overly armed for their role of merchant hunting. The guns could not train nearly as fast as necessary to hit cruisers, which were used to hunt them.

3. I know a lot about strategy AND tactics. And the blitzkrieg was not broken until the Germans were running, after the abandonment of the plan to rescue the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Again, check your facts.

4. I would explain why Italy lead to the German defeat, but I am afraid you would either a) laugh or b) not understand.

[wolfshadow]

There were many factors leading the the German Defeat. One of the main ones was Hitler's decision to not retreat at Stalingrad. With the Loss of Von Paulus' 6th Army, and the 4th and almost a million fighting men as an effective fighting force, this badly affected the German's ability to fight the Russians.

Hitler's decision that Von Paulus could not retreat is one of the single worst decisons that was mad in the war.... With the men in that foce as a cohesive unit, even with the losses that they would have sustained there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the war would ahve gone on for at least another year, or possibly two.

Edit: 4th and 6th armies we're destryed at Stalingrad....

Edited by wolfshadow, 05 March 2006 - 06:31 PM.

[Capt.Drake]

Stalingrad wasn't more then a big symbol, the war was lost before, perhaps with the Battle of Moskow or even with the Attacking of the Sowjet Union.

And yeah if we would have used proper bombers we would have bomed the UK to Hell, but we used tatic bombers, similar to the US Maraúders or Invaders.
And another thing is, that where the German High Command was able to make it's desicions they were able to have sucess, but whre Hitler was commanding the things normally didn't work. And another fact, if Paulus would have done the same thing as Rommel he could have evacuated perhaps the hole 6th Army.
Then Creator, the German Industry was bombed to pices, perhaps it moved to bunkers, but that took time and many machines were lost so the production was very slow, and you must remember how these bunkers were made.
About ten kilometeres away from my home there is one of those Bunkers, it could surive a close hit from a nuclear bomb, but 15000 men fro´m KZ did in the 10 months in which it was build, the same with all those other bunkers.
And do you know Creator why Hitler attacked Rssia?

[Thunder_Head]

Hey, let's think about this. What if Germany(Nazis) invades middle east instead of USSR?

Edited by Thunder_Head, 06 March 2006 - 12:34 PM.

[Creator]

1. The Germans had used tactical bombers in a strategic role starting with the Battle of Britain. Had they fielded a bomber relatively equivalent to the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24, England would have been worse off and perhaps beaten decisively.

Nobody can use a tactical plane in strategic role because its range is too short and it can not carry a lot of bombs. I know that Germans tried to bomb London. But it is not a strategic role. It can be considered only as revenge missions. Strategy is when you find a weak place in enemy AA defence, order your bombers to fly there, then make maneurs to fool their defences, then suddenly turn to your real target, destroy it and fly away. That what Germans did are not a strategic air strikes. To attack well protected eastern coast of England is foolishness.

2. The Germans put to sea several small 'pocket battleships' - which in practice were overly armed for their role of merchant hunting. The guns could not train nearly as fast as necessary to hit cruisers, which were used to hunt them.

I said nothing about their ships. I just want to underline that their main naval force were submarines. They had military ships as well, but they had no goal to build super strong surface navy.

3. I know a lot about strategy AND tactics. And the blitzkrieg was not broken until the Germans were running, after the abandonment of the plan to rescue the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Again, check your facts.

I'm not sure what do you mean saying "Germans were running".

So, two words about blitzkrieg. Blitz is German for fast. Krieg is German for war. Blitz+Krieg = Blitzkrieg = Fast War. The plan was to defeat enemies for a month, two or six months. This is why this strategy had been named blitzkrieg. A war that lasts more than a year is not a blitzkrieg. Invasion of France was blitzkrieg. Invasion of Demnark was blitzkrieg. War with USSR was NOT blitzkrieg.

Two words about Stalingrad. Stalingrad battle had began in 3 months after they had failed operation "Typhoon". The fail of this operation had ruined whole Blitzkrieg strategy.

4. I would explain why Italy lead to the German defeat, but I am afraid you would either a) laugh or b) not understand.

Point A is correct. I will laugh. The only force that lead to the German defeat was Red Army of USSR. Germany lost very much when Italy surrendered. Italy surrendered after allied (US and English) forces landed there. Their operation had become possible only after soviets had carried out operation "Bagration" that had completely destroyed german "Center" groups of armies. In other case Germans could move their armies to Italy and defend successfully.

And yes, Italy surrender was not a big loss in comparation with what they had lost on eastern front.

Then Creator, the German Industry was bombed to pices, perhaps it moved to bunkers, but that took time and many machines were lost so the production was very slow, and you must remember how these bunkers were made.
About ten kilometeres away from my home there is one of those Bunkers, it could surive a close hit from a nuclear bomb, but 15000 men fro´m KZ did in the 10 months in which it was build, the same with all those other bunkers.

Yes, I agree. But the thing I'm talking about is that bombing (in general) is not so powerfull as some people think. At least German factories had not been completely lost.

And do you know Creator why Hitler attacked Russia?

Shortly - greediness. Western part of USSR was very rich with coal, oil and other resources. Plus low tech level of soviet army in 1939-1941 (the main force was light BT tanks). Plus peaceful pact with USSR that could make attack unexpectable and hence, very successful. All these facts in common made USSR very attractive.

Hey, let's think about this. What if Germany(Nazis) invades middle east instead of USSR?

No we will not talk about it because it will be nothing mora than just fantasy.

Edited by Creator, 06 March 2006 - 07:02 PM.

[Thunder_Head]

The Germans lost because:

1. No strategic bomber.
2. Hitler had no respect for the surface navy.
3. Hitler insisted Stalingrad be a huge battle which the German blitzkrieg tactics would have avoided
4. Italy was their ally.
5. America joined.

Let's go by point-to-point
1) I think lack of strategic bomber is not the real problem. However, the Germans use V-1 and V-2 as a strategic bomber to weaken the air defense if Hitler is more patient guy
2) Subs always deadlier than surface Navy. Subs will act as a sword while surface navy is just "a sheild" to defense the homeland from intruders. Additionally, if you look at the geography of Germany, they don't need large fleet of surface navy
No idea on #3
4) I don't think so. Instead they shouldn't have France as their allies (when German conquers France) because....take this link then you'll know why
5) Not really if Nazi keep destroying UK.

Hey, let's think about this. What if Germany(Nazis) invades middle east instead of USSR?

Well, actually this plan was once written in the Nazi's document. But Hitler Can't find a chance to invade to Turkey. After Turkey invaded. Hitler would invade USSR easily without worrying about the winter.

PS. It is NOT a fantasy. I just saw "what if" from History Channel.

[Slowpoke]

Well, you're fairly right, but... The surface navy is better then subs in one point: Aircraft Carriers. And subs of the 1930's till 1940's weren't too good and had to surface many times.




About no tactical bombers, the Heinkel He-177 Greif was a huge bomber, capable of flying with 5000 kilogrammes of bombs in a range where a B17 only could take 2715. Hitler said 'no bombers now, the house burns! you need to extinguish the fire', and he ment to use fighters, but in 1943 it wasn't too late yet. So, that was a mistake.

Let's take a look at the Jet aircraft (I know, it was a fighter), the most operational was the Messerschmidtt Me262. The Me262A1 was ready in 1941, but the engines weren't right. In 1942, the plane was done and ready for producing. Hitler: I want it to be a tactical light BOMBER! and it became the Me262a2. But it was 1944, and the mass production factor of germany was lowered due to bombings.

[Capt.Drake]

Ok, Slowpoke, I say again, there was no stratigic bomber in used with the German Luftwaffe, they only used tactical Bombers, the Greif was in prototype phase but not more, like some other planes.
And just for information, there have been some prototpes for jet bombers. And there even was one jet bomber but I forgot the name.
And I sy again, the V-1 and V-2 had now use exept trroizing the civilians, cause they were too inaccurate. and many V-1 were shoot down before reaching the trget, and it only flew streight hed, so there was no actual stearing.

Italy was a bad enemy, cause it attacked Greece and Egypt, and forced the Germans to go there too, cause they couldn't do it by theirself.

Then about the Navy

The Subs where very dadly for the convoys, but in the end of the war the UK and US invented many weapons against subs and were able to hunt them very effectifly.

Then a problem with the surface navy was that Germany had very few destroyers left when they wanted to make bigger fleet ops, cause they were shot into pices ib´n the Invasion of Norway.

Then about surface ships. The Bismark was one of the best battleships in the Atlantic, even the HomeFleet couldn't sink it.

But the surface fleet didn't had any real use in the Atlantic, cause germany didn't had so many ships, so the War in the Atlantic was more about sub hunting then about big battles.

[Slowpoke]

Ok, Slowpoke, I say again, there was no stratigic bomber in used with the German Luftwaffe, they only used tactical Bombers, the Greif was in prototype phase but not more, like some other planes.
And just for information, there have been some prototpes for jet bombers. And there even was one jet bomber but I forgot the name.
And I sy again, the V-1 and V-2 had now use exept trroizing the civilians, cause they were too inaccurate. and many V-1 were shoot down before reaching the trget, and it only flew streight hed, so there was no actual stearing.

Italy was a bad enemy, cause it attacked Greece and Egypt, and forced the Germans to go there too, cause they couldn't do it by theirself.

Then about the Navy

The Subs where very dadly for the convoys, but in the end of the war the UK and US invented many weapons against subs and were able to hunt them very effectifly.


Wake up earlier if you want to beat me at WWII airplanes.

Then a problem with the surface navy was that Germany had very few destroyers left when they wanted to make bigger fleet ops, cause they were shot into pices ib´n the Invasion of Norway.

Then about surface ships. The Bismark was one of the best battleships in the Atlantic, even the HomeFleet couldn't sink it.

But the surface fleet didn't had any real use in the Atlantic, cause germany didn't had so many ships, so the War in the Atlantic was more about sub hunting then about big battles.

Ok, I don't want to be sarcastic, but you force me to. The Greif was an operational bomber. It was the only real strategic bomber. Oh, einstein, the bomber you mean would be the Arado 234. Not really operational, only had a few missions.


About the V1's and V2's, I haven't said they were effective. Read and think.

Edited by Slowpoke, 07 March 2006 - 02:03 PM.

[Capt.Drake]

you din't say anything about the V-1 and V-2 but others.
And I don't know anything aboutany frontline use of the Greif.
So I think the Arado was more operational then the Greif

[Slowpoke]

The greif was really operational. The Arado only called out a few missions, the greif however bombed a lot.

[Capt.Drake]

Ok, it was used i looked around a bit, but it seams that it wasn't that good, and it was in service just from 1942 on and it had many problems with the engines. And it doesn't seam to be very sucessful by the way.

[Slowpoke]

The brittish said 'we are lucky this thing hasn't got full clearance from hitler'. The later versions were perfect. But Hitler didn't want them.

[Capt.Drake]

Ok Dutchman, just a fact, the French had the better tanks, but their tactics sucked, they used the tanks as infantry support and not the other way, then german tankes moved around and moved on. And then it was combined arms that was making victory.

It was one of the best armies, it conquered most of Europa, but they had broblems with support and reinforcements, like Napolean.

[Creator]

Dutchman, that what you said is typical propaganda about brave warriors that heroically resisted foul invaders. This type of propaganda exist in all countries and used for hiding dark pages of history.

As for "hard time", I can make an example. Kursk Battle lasted 50 days. And it is not the longest one.

[Slowpoke]

Indeed. I live in Holland, and I know exactly what you are talking about.


The Dutch held out for not much more then a week. There are stories about people killing germans with stones. I don't believe them. They say (I think you would think the same, patriotic way) that there were persons with MUSKET GUNS downing Messerschmidtts. Well, with a Spitfire needing to shoot a while on them to get them down, one musket shot wouldn't do a think. Bombing the Rotterdam city was it.

[DAA]

the greif was not more than a prototype form over 1200 were in total produced. There were even further variants of the he-177 to make sure the engines werent crap they developed the he-277 and he-274 read about it

[Thunder_Head]

Can someone think why Japanese lost in WWII. This is what i think
1)not well trained army
2)limit resources
3)No strategic bomber
4)forgot to destroy a gas station on Pearl Harbor

[Gredinus]

Well the bigest faliure was that they retreaded after they attacke pearl harbor.
If they didnt they moust likely destroyed the rest of the us fleet.

Strategic bombers arent very useful on see battles.