132 replies to this topic

[Pendaelose]

well in WW2 there was a other story: Germany had the best trained army then.

... and lost

I think they really did have outstanding troops... but its proof that no matter how good your army is you can only fight as many enemies as your logistics will allow.

Logistics (SUPPLY AND MOVEMENT) is every bit as important as quality of troops...

[Gredinus]

one of the reasons they lost was that the americans had more shermans than the tiger tanks had ammonition.

[Phoenix911]

one of the reasons they lost was that the americans had more shermans than the tiger tanks had ammonition.

No the main reason they was was they attack austra (i think it was) That then brang the english into the war, And then the second vital mistake witch also ened the battle of britan and made england go on the offence was this churchill said this. "we will not retaliat all we will do is defend wave after wave of there bombers. BUT if any bomb hits a city then we will strike back" not in thos words but u get the drift, england was soo close to losing the battle of britan as they call it if the nazis kept attacking there airfields like they was england would have lost. BUT because of one fatal mistake by one of the nazi bomber crews panicing going off course and droping there payload on london made english LANCASTORS (best bomber in ww2) take off and attack german citys this made the nazis attack english citys but this gave england enough time to rebuild lose aircrafts and airfields.
Eougher reason germanly lost the war is the japs attacked pearl harber. If you remember America wanted to stay out of this war but the japs attacked them and made the sleeping giant (as some history programs have referd to them) awake and get in on the war.
And the third and formost reason germanly lost was they attacked war too meny countrys at a time that they had to strech there troops and resorces out to near braking point. Trying to attack asutria then france and then english then russa and then america getting in on the fight is not such an easy thing to win.

[Pendaelose]

ummm attacking austria wasnt a faliure becose they surender instantly.
The only big mistake was to attack russia and break the triple pakt (that was signed by japan, germany , russia , italy and a few other countrys.)

Austria did surrender, but the political impacts were resounding. It had a large part to do with the other Allies entering the war. I think it would be foolish to tie everyones actions to SINGLE events, but the cumlative of all these events was certainly enough to make the difference, and Austria was definatly a part of that whole.

[Phoenix911]

ummm attacking austria wasnt a faliure becose they surender instantly.
The only big mistake was to attack russia and break the triple pakt (that was signed by japan, germany , russia , italy and a few other countrys.)

Austria did surrender, but the political impacts were resounding. It had a large part to do with the other Allies entering the war. I think it would be foolish to tie everyones actions to SINGLE events, but the cumlative of all these events was certainly enough to make the difference, and Austria was definatly a part of that whole.

thank you and goodnight
thats my whole point all of them key thing i said on the own would not change the war but all of them together is the thing that won the war. And as u said austria did surender but as pend said they was allies with england and a few other countrys. England had no part in teh war and wanted to stay out of it just like america did but as soon as austria was invaded england became part of that war. and germany was the one that made that mistake.
And america was in teh war only cos of the japans attacking pearl harber if they did not then america would have sat on the side lines. The main reason america was targeted but not all fo teh reasons was america was supplying england and other allied countrys with weapons and supplys.
and germany atacking russa was yet another BOLD move by hitler.
I will say this tho even tho german lost the war and they made som grave mistakes they HELD out a damn long time. U can't say germany was a weak force like some ppl woudl cos they took on meny countrys at once and managed to hold ground quiet long. not meny countrys could have held out like they did for the amount of time they did.

[Creator]

I think they really did have outstanding troops... but its proof that no matter how good your army is you can only fight as many enemies as your logistics will allow.

I don't think so. I can't say that their traning was bad. But at the same time I think that their traning was on the same level with all other countries. Also one should notice that Germany had conquered all Europe and turned power of all european countries against allies. So, it is incorrect to say that Germany was alone.

Edited by Creator, 17 February 2006 - 08:19 AM.

[Capt.Drake]

Ok now I'll say sth! Cause I'm lets say very good in what we are talking about!
Ok not so sure about the German training compared to others.
But Austria became part of the 3rd Reich over Night, and nothing happend!
We took parts of Tschechien nobody said anything. But when we attacked poland G.B. and France declared war to Germany. But nothing happend for a few months. Then we rushed France, Holland and Franch, cause we had the better tactics, then we made our first mistake! We didn't destroy the English Expedition Corps.
Then we had the Battle of Britain, where we made the next mistake! We stopped attacking the British airfields!
So they could reeinforce. Then Russia, and then it's almost done, exept of declairing war to the US.
The rest you can look up in your history books

[7th_Panzer]

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.

[Creator]

1. No strategic bomber.

Absence of strategic bomber is not an error - it is just difference because Fau and Fau-2 missiles carried out strategic bomber role perfectly. They've even developed intercontinental missile and launched it at USA, but it missed.

2. Hitler had no respect for the surface navy.

Yet again, it is just another difference, not an error. German u-bots (submarines) was strong power. They drowned a lot of convoys and forced USA and England to deliver help to USSR another way - through Alaska and Syberia.

3. Hitler insisted Stalingrad be a huge battle which the German blitzkrieg tactics would have avoided

Mega LOL! It appears that you don't know difference between tactics and strategy. Shortly, strategy is plan of the whole war. Tactics is the way how and with what means they are going to fight. Blitzkrieg plan had been broken long before Stalingrad battle.

4. Italy was their ally.

And the biggest error is that they speak German instead of English

5. America joined.

Japan had to fight USA while Germany was fighting USSR. They planned to defeat USSR quickly and then unite and fight USA and England together. America was in their plans and joining its was not a surprize.

Edited by Creator, 19 February 2006 - 03:58 PM.

[Slowpoke]

[quote] BUT because of one fatal mistake by one of the nazi bomber crews panicing going off course and droping there payload on london made english LANCASTORS (best bomber in ww2) [/quote]



Lancasters weren't in service back then. The Avro Lancaster Mk.I was used in 1942. The British assault on Hamburg back then was done by reservists. They lost much.

[quote]1. No strategic bomber.[/quote]


[quote]
Absence of strategic bomber is not an error - it is just difference because Fau and Fau-2 missiles carried out strategic bomber role perfectly. They've even developed intercontinental missile and launched it at USA, but it missed.
[/quote]

1: Since 1943 the V-1, since 1944 V-2.


2: Nope, it wasn't even a prototype. It was to be due in 1947.


[quote]2. Hitler had no respect for the surface navy.[/quote]


He had. Bismarck and Tirpitz were his baby's.

[quote]
Yet again, it is just another difference, not an error. German u-bots (submarines) was strong power. They drowned a lot of convoys and forced USA and England to deliver help to USSR another way - through Alaska and Syberia.[/quote]

-Yes, this is so true.

[/quote]
3. Hitler insisted Stalingrad be a huge battle which the German blitzkrieg tactics would have avoided
[/quote]
[quote]
Mega LOL! It appears that you don't know difference between tactics and strategy. Shortly, strategy is plan of the whole war. Tactics is the way how and with what means they are going to fight. Blitzkrieg plan had been broken long before Stalingrad battle.
[/quote]

Jawohl. But the battle was too large.

[quote name='7th_Panzer' post='253476' date='Feb 18 2006, 11:01 PM']
4. Italy was their ally.
[/quote]
[quote] And the biggest error is that they speak German instead of English
[/quote]
Heh.

[quote name='7th_Panzer' post='253476' date='Feb 18 2006, 11:01 PM']
5. America joined.
[/quote]

I can't say no.

[quote]
Japan had to fight USA while Germany was fighting USSR. They planned to defeat USSR quickly and then unite and fight USA and England together. America was in their plans and joining its was not a surprize.
[/quote]

Jappo. But they should've waited with USSR till England was down.

Edited by Slowpoke, 28 February 2006 - 04:35 PM.

[Thunder_Head]

Hey,slowpoke, could you edit your quote. I don't get what you are talking about

[Slowpoke]

Woops

[Thunder_Head]

Hey do you know how to fix it?

[Creator]

Too much quotes. It is needed to split topic into 2 smaller ones.

[Creator]

Jawohl. But the battle was too large.

Just for information. There were 4 large battles in WW2:

1) Battle for Moscow. (aka operation "Typhoon")
Duration: from September of 1941 to Aptil of 1942.
German forces: 1 708 000 soldiers, 13 500 artillery units, 1 170 tanks, 615 planes.
Soviet forces: 1 100 000 soldiers, 7 652 artillery units, 774 tanks, 1 000 planes.
Result: Nazis invertion was stopped. Blitzkrieg plan was failed completely.

2) Stalingrad Battle.
Duration: from July of 1942 to February of 1943
German forces: 300 000 soldiers, 3 400 artillery units, 400 tanks, 1 200 planes
Soviet forces: 270 000 soldiers, 5 000 artillery units, 1 000 tanks, 450 planes
Result: Nazis attack force entered Stalingrad, then had beed surrounded and destroyed.

3) Kursk Battle. (aka operation "Citadel")
Duration: from July of 1943 to August of 1943
German forces: 900 000 soldiers, 10 000 artillery units, 2 733 tanks, 2 050 planes.
Soviet forces: 1 336 000 soldiers, 19 100 artillery units, 3 444 tanks, 2 172 planes.
Result: Kursk had been defended successfully. Nazis retreated.

4) Berlin operation.
Duration: From April of 1945 to May of 1945
German forces: 1 000 000 soldiers, 10 400 artillery units, 1 500 tanks, 3 300 planes.
Soviet forces: 2 500 000 soldiers, 41 600 artillery units, 6 250 tanks, 7 500 planes.
Result: Happy end.

As you can see, Stalingrad Battle is the smallest one. It looks so tiny in comparation with Moscow Battle, which appeared to be the begining of the end.

[Slowpoke]

But the Stalinggrad battle turned out to have the germans trapped and cut off recourses.

[Capt.Drake]

Stalingrad wasn't much more then a symbol, that the tide hzas changed with start of Operation Barbarossa German Army was bleeding out their losses were bigger then the reinforcements.
The V-2 and V-1 had almost no effect they could just terrorize the people in the UK.
The Germans didn't do any Stratigicbombing on the UK, that was their mistake. The same with russia, they could have bombed russian industry to pices before it could have been moved behind the Ural.
And then Germany did everything too fast if they would have waited a bit between each Operation and Reinforce. They would have been much more sucessful.

Yeah Creator, what about making a WW2 topic, so this topic can become the topic it was meant to be.

And pls don't start with a Intercontinantal Missile. I'm from Germany and have read perhaps more about WW2 as all of you together.

And here comes another point. We made the Holocaust, so many Scientists moved to the US, best example Albert Einstein.

The Battle of Maskow could only have been win cause the Russians and Japan aggred to not attack each other, so Stalin could move his Winter Elite from sebiria to Moskow

[Creator]

But the Stalinggrad battle turned out to have the germans trapped and cut off recourses.

Only attacking force was trapped. Not whole Germany

Stalingrad wasn't much more then a symbol

Totaly agree. It was more a symbol.
But anyway, the number of men involded in it were aproximately equal to the number of men involded in D-Day (320 000 allied troops vs 200 000 german troops).

The V-2 and V-1 had almost no effect they could just terrorize the people in the UK.

The same can be said about strategic bombing in general. Facts say that German industry was growing and advancing successfuly under allied bombardments.

The Germans didn't do any Stratigicbombing on the UK, that was their mistake.

Mistake was in rejecting the plan of attacking England in general. Remember that Germany and USSR were allies until Summer of 1941. Invasion of England was very possible.

The same with russia, they could have bombed russian industry to pices before it could have been moved behind the Ural.

They tried to bomb it with planes they had. And a lot of trains and factories were lost. But Soviets knew how to hide and camouflage trains and also they had LOTS of trains and railroads. I think that no strategic bombing could help Germans. Especially if to notice that nothing can be free. Germany had no infinite resources. They had possibility to build strategic bombers, but in this case they had to substract resources from another branch of industry. Simply, more planes - less tanks. More powerfull air force - less powerfull ground force.

And then Germany did everything too fast if they would have waited a bit between each Operation and Reinforce. They would have been much more sucessful.

To wait = to allow enemy to reinforce. Power of German forces was in their speed.

And pls don't start with a Intercontinantal Missile. I'm from Germany and have read perhaps more about WW2 as all of you together.

There are a lot of rumors about it. They say that only 1 such missile was built, launched, but nobody knows what happened then. Each story have its own version, but all of them say that in the end missile fell to Atlantic Ocean.

The Battle of Maskow could only have been win cause the Russians and Japan aggred to not attack each other, so Stalin could move his Winter Elite from sebiria to Moskow

!
Just think about what you're saying. USSR and Japan were enemies. And you say that 2 enemies aggred to not attack each other. Blah! There was correctly carried out spy operation on the Far East. Japanese were ensured by Russian spies that USSR have very strong force in that region. This is why Japanese had rejected their plan of attacking USSR. And this is why there was possible to move forces from Siberia to Moscow. This operation began long before WW2, whole spy net had been created. It allowed to misinform Japanese for a lot of time. After it had been finished, it was secret for 50 years. Only in 90s they had removed secrecy.

Edited by Creator, 01 March 2006 - 11:24 AM.