The Nazi War Machine

[Statalyzer]

Enough is enough. This thread has been off topic for pages.

Well, it wouldn't be off-topic if it had it's own thread.

You up for it, drac? Wanna back up all your loudmouth rantings and really argue this out? Wanna chance to make your point about how powerful Germany really was before you get shredded yet again? Remember your swastica-clad heros did get their asses kicked.

[BlckWyerve]

Skinheads aren't very bright. I doubt you'll get much out of this thread.

[Mr.BillCollector]

You want to know my favorite thing about nazis? Blowing them all to pieces on Call of Duty 2. God, I hate racists and bigots, and stupid rednecks who use Hitler to justify thier ignorance.

[Dracaveli]

who ever said i was a skinhead or nazi...i just acknowledge them as i do any military, do u not discuss ghengis kahn or the roman empire , even as they were brutal in every regard as the nazi's

[nilloC]

who ever said i was a skinhead or nazi...i just acknowledge them as i do any military, do u not discuss ghengis kahn or the roman empire , even as they were brutal in every regard as the nazi's


This is where "Time Frames" come into play. People aren't perfect, moron, and will select the nearest incident from their memory. Ghengis Kahn and the Roman Empire were about 1500 years ago; the Nazi Party was a mere 65 or so.

[Dracaveli]

Im guessing men like Sun Ce, Dong Zhou and Lu Bu are not in your memory either.

[nilloC]

Im guessing men like Sun Ce, Dong Zhou and Lu Bu are not in your memory either.

No, they are, but because I'm a friggin' History major. To most people, they base their decisions and ideals on major, recent events. Thus, the Nazi Party was the last group of truly hated bigots to commit a great atrocity effecting the largest population in the past 100 years (if not 1000 years). And the fact that it happened during a time when the Media was rapidly growing imposes that thought even more.

EDIT: Why the **** are we even arguing over this anyways!?

[Derek]

No, they are, but because I'm a friggin' History major. To most people, they base their decisions and ideals on major, recent events. Thus, the Nazi Party was the last group of truly hated bigots to commit a great atrocity effecting the largest population in the past 100 years (if not 1000 years). And the fact that it happened during a time when the Media was rapidly growing imposes that thought even more.

EDIT: Why the **** are we even arguing over this anyways!?
I thought you were a Psychology major? :dizzy:

[nilloC]

I thought you were a Psychology major? :dizzy:

Psychology and History, I'm a double major... Don't ask me why I picked up a History major on the side. :p

[Statalyzer]

Thus, the Nazi Party was the last group of truly hated bigots to commit a great atrocity effecting the largest population in the past 100 years (if not 1000 years).

Well, one of the last two (Russia committed all sorts of atrocities also, it's just they get glossed over more b/c they were our Allies I guess). Japan did too, but not on the scale of Germany and Russia.

i just acknowledge them as i do any military, do u not discuss ghengis kahn or the roman empire ,

You haven't just been acknowledging them, you've been talking about them in glorified terms as if you were on their side, talking trash about how great they were compared to USA and Britian.

Ghengis Khan and the Roman Empire kicked butt all over the place for quite some time. Germany kicked butt for 2 years and then got steadily annihilated.

[YuriRuler90]

The thing about the Roman Empire was the fact that it was a ****ing steamroller. Period.

The Nazi's were atrocious, but, at the head of them, was one of the greatest men who has ever lived. I am not a Nazi symathizer, but after doing my damn 17 page report on Hitler, he was a great man, in terms of Military aptitude and Psychological effect.

Ah, my hands tire after playing games all day. Bicker on. :p

[NuclearDreams]

Dictators! They all suck weeny.

My hero is Vlad the Impaler. :D

[Statalyzer]

but after doing my damn 17 page report on Hitler, he was a great man, in terms of Military aptitude and Psychological effect.

Psychologically, he was a master. He was an effective leader and knew how to make things happen and actually did a lot of good for Germany for a while. But his military aptitude is questionable - he was great at organization and mobilization, but his strategy was horrible and he kept interfering with his generals when they were right.

[starscream007]

But his military aptitude is questionable - he was great at organization and mobilization, but his strategy was horrible and he kept interfering with his generals when they were right.

And with that one military flaw Stalin was able to march the Red Communist Army into Berlin and destroy the Nazi War Machine alongside with the US and Britain

[wargrudge]

Stalin was just as much of a strategic dolt as Hitler was, but his strong point was he listened to his generals when it mattered, where as Hitler did not.

[Mr.BillCollector]

Stalin was just as much of a strategic dolt as Hitler was, but his strong point was he listened to his generals when it mattered, where as Hitler did not.

And they were both immense dickfaces too. They got that in common! Could you say that in a 17 page report? "Hitler was also a giant dickface", cause you know, its a fact.

[Dracaveli]

Hitler based a lot of his "tactics" with the occult, he use to greet officers who attended his rallies with the nazi flag in one hand an shake with the other.

He believed that power from the Nazi flag flowed threw him into the german officers. His belief in the panzer Divs were the same.

This was his rational for commiting huge blunders, he believed that German units were not only genetically superior but also spirituality protected

this led to his refusal to send winter clothing for the russian war, convinced that the war would be over in august, although i have it on tape where he says "If anyone told me they could deploy 80,000 tanks in one battle i would have not invaded"....this admission by Hitler leads me to believe he was aware atleast in part of the mistakes he made.....by then Parkinson's disease was eating away at his brain

So it's hard to tell if it was his true wishes to stay in stalingrad or kiev as he did

[Derek]

by then Parkinson's disease was eating away at his brain
Parkinson's is not a mental disease, its a physical one. If anything was eating away at his brain it was all the drugs he was on.

[ItalianPenguin]

Parkinson's is not a mental disease, its a physical one. If anything was eating away at his brain it was all the drugs he was on.
Actually, Parkinson's disease is a neurological disorder. However, the disease alone did not "eat away at his brain." Like you said it was probably all the drugs he was on.

[Derek]

Actually, Parkinson's disease is a neurological disorder. However, the disease alone did not "eat away at his brain." Like you said it was probably all the drugs he was on.
Well yes, it affects the nerves I think, but as far as I know it doesn't affect the brain any.

[Wrecking Crew]

It wasn't Parkinson's Disease, it was Syphilis. Make of that what you will.

[wargrudge]

No no no, you're all wrong. The alien race known as the Zygorn put a brain masher in his head and made him think he was invincible. This, added with his own dillusions led to the fall of the Nazi regime.

[ItalianPenguin]

Parkinson's part in Hitler's downfall (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/406713.stm)

He had Parkinson's also, didn't know about the Syphilis though. Sounds like he didn't watch himself in his "fun time" activites.

[wargrudge]

How much "fun time" can a guy have that is not only ugly and evil, but has one testicle? (No offense to Lance, he's awesome)

[ItalianPenguin]

How much "fun time" can a guy have that is not only ugly and evil, but has one testicle? (No offense to Lance, he's awesome)
When you're dictator, you can find time for fun things.

[Derek]

How much "fun time" can a guy have that is not only ugly and evil, but has one testicle? (No offense to Lance, he's awesome)
What part of "Most powerful man in the world (for a few years)" don't you understand :p

EDIT: Darn you, IP :p

[wargrudge]

He didn't have that much power in his pants. :p


(ok, I'll stop now)

[Dracaveli]

Thier is no proof that Hitler had Syphilis or that he did not, in fact giving his disdain to strong drink an affection i highly doubt hitler was the party animal as u might think.

He had a love for opera an painting which occupied much of his youth, I doubt if Hitler was a Ladies man, his fellow comrads in ww1 said he only began to be himself when he first saw combat.

few know that the volkswagon bettle design was done by Adolf Hitler, with a creative mind as his, I doubt if he was obsessed with sex and women like so many weak men are.

i think Hitler was a depress youth for a long time, then he went into combat got the thrill of killing an set fourth to launch a murdering rage, i dont think he was a ladies man swinging from one bar to the next picking up women since he hated drinking an was serious about the occult an nazism

Hitler was not lazy in governace, a work ethic like that leads me to beleive any notion of him carelessly sleeping with one woman to the next is unlikely.

[KrasnyOktyabr]

Actually the Beetle was designed by Ferdinand Porche, the idea of a 'people's car' and the initiative to produce it was all Hitler though.

As for being a ladies man, no he wasn't, he didn't have the self esteem to be a ladies man. He loved two women in his life, his cousin who killed herself because of how obsessive he was, and Eva Braun who he refused to marry because he felt the countries leader should always appear single and thus powerful. But he was also always seeking approval from the both of them, and needed to be deficated on before he could get an erection. This is all pretty well documented too.

Hitler was pretty mentally ****ed up, but with a childhood like his I think most of us would have been. But as was said, the sheer amount of morphine he was on didn't help either, but mind you at the time they did not know the long term effects of morphine.

[Mr.BillCollector]

Wasnt he big on amphetamines too?

[Dracaveli]

Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people").

In an era where only the most economic elite possessed cars, Hitler believed that all people should be able to own a car and additionally thought that a smart design could allow for reliability, enjoyment, and vacation travel.

The name given to the car in 1938 was Kraft durch Freude (KdF-Wagen, literally "strength through joy car").
Hitler gave his design to the head of Daimler-Benz, Jakob Werlin, and stressed its importance. "Take it with you and speak with people who understand more about it than I do. But don't forget it. I want to hear from you soon, about the technical details."

[Mr.BillCollector]

Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people").

In an era where only the most economic elite possessed cars, Hitler believed that all people should be able to own a car and additionally thought that a smart design could allow for reliability, enjoyment, and vacation travel.

The name given to the car in 1938 was Kraft durch Freude (KdF-Wagen, literally "strength through joy car").
Hitler gave his design to the head of Daimler-Benz, Jakob Werlin, and stressed its importance. "Take it with you and speak with people who understand more about it than I do. But don't forget it. I want to hear from you soon, about the technical details."

Good ol' Hitler, I tell ya, what a caring guy. He cared so much for his populace he designed a car for even the peasants to afford. While he was eating his dinner at that! He would go so far as to help the people that he would create things for them during his meal breaks. What a good guy! So where did the cars destined to go to the 6 millon jews and others he ruthlessly executed wind up? Here in america? Gosh, Hitler sure is swell, he even helps poor americans!



oh, by the way drac, youre an idiot and I hate you.

[Dracaveli]

Hitler was indiffernet to the suffering of other nationalities, but he did have a vibrant german state, the German doctors under strict nazi health standards for the "master race" was the first to identify the connection with smoking an lung cancer...

if u do a little research u will see strong health slogans an poster found in germany supporting a healthy lifestyle for the "master race"....

Hitler also at huge cost to his war budget built huge concrete shelters for major cities just for the citizens alone to have shelter from allied air raids...

but in the end however Hitler decided that the german ppl failed him but he did not fail them so he commenced to destroying the german state itself, however many top german generals charged with carrying out this duty did not follow orders..

in the nazi youth programme, Hitler would use the abandon or siezed german jewish mansions as retreats for Hitler youth of the inner cities, most of whom never even left the city at all in their life....ingenious in design to serve maniacal puropses

as far as being a freind of the jews, Germany was the only nation fully accepting jews, many fought in ww1 for germany.....


during the years leading up to ww2 a jewish ship filled to the bridge of refugee's fleeing Germany was turned away from Brazil, America, Cuba and England, only the wealthy an most influentual Jews were allowed to enter such nations. Germany as i said before nazism rose was the only nation fully welcoming jews into their land regardless of class.

[NuclearDreams]

Mods? In "dracs" case a background check is warranted. If you'll notice his previous posts, the writing was foreign to english at best, almost as if he was writing accented english on purpose. But now I notice a dramatic change, something fishy is going on here. Either he is an alien retard or just a pervert who writes these posts while sitting naked sporting combat boots and smoking long cigerettes through his rotting teeth. I say we dog pile on em and beat the goo out of him. :rockbrow:

[yjm308]

as far as being a freind of the jews, Germany was the only nation fully accepting jews, many fought in ww1 for germany.....


yes but Germany was also the only nation to murder them all on a large scale. So who cares about what they did before that? anyone?

**** hitler :flame:

[Dracaveli]

if that be the case, why love America recall their works against Indians, an africans.....the same governace who created all those evil works exist today..

[Statalyzer]

Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people").

He actually designed the prototype? That's really stretching the meaning of "design". He wasn't exactly a mechanical engineer....

In an era where only the most economic elite possessed cars, Hitler believed that all people should be able to own a car and additionally thought that a smart design could allow for reliability, enjoyment, and vacation travel.

Now that part is true.

Part of the way Hitler worked is that he generally did good things and provided strong, effective leadership, so long as you weren't one of the unlucky folks whom he decided needed to be removed. So unlike the average dictator who makes everyone miserable, until late in the war, a native German who wasn't Jewish, a gypsy, or a few other things could just ignore politics and live a nice life. So the average populace thought he was doing a great job, since not many people had a nice life after Germany got shat upon by Britian and France post-WW1, until Hitler came along.

[crystal_sword]

Mods? In "dracs" case a background check is warranted. If you'll notice his previous posts, the writing was foreign to english at best, almost as if he was writing accented english on purpose. But now I notice a dramatic change, something fishy is going on here. Either he is an alien retard or just a pervert who writes these posts while sitting naked sporting combat boots and smoking long cigerettes through his rotting teeth. I say we dog pile on em and beat the goo out of him. :rockbrow:
lol, what the.. !? LOL

hmm

Nazis did have a good army.

But end of the day It dont matter how good or Powerful or Revolutionary their army was. They still lost the war right?

Its not about IF's. Its a fact.

As for Hitler, people loved him because of his stance, and he looked Promising. However during the end, his Views and decisions cost the lives of many. Therefore, its pointless saying "he was good for this and that". Point is, he did ALOT more Harm than good.

Best is to forget him,

Just reminds me nowadays of how Certain countries are attacking other certain countries, Pointless war's have no winners,

[RICKRAIDER]

Hmmm...watching americans berating their victims...

On what weapon is the M-60 machinegun based.... German MG-42
On what weapon is the modern assault rifle based... Stg-44, FG-42 and MG-42
Who created the first mass produced fighter jet... Germany
Who took every bit of gold smelted from Jews' mouths and stuck it in their economy... America
Who developed the first nuke... Germany
Who developed guided missles... Germany
Who was able to rally an entire nation coming out of the depression into unity, thus ensuring work for everyone... Hitler
Who was voted person of the year by Time Magazine in 1938... Hitler

You see... altough Hitler was crazy by starting WWII, he did some amazing things in his time. And Germany did have the best equipment and the best troops during World War II... the only problem was that they didn't have enough.

[YuriRuler90]

What happened to Hitler's military end was mostly his fault. If he would of listened to his generals, there is a large chance that two SS Panzer divisions (the 21st Panzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer) division guarded Caen, and the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Division_Hitlerjugend)) would of been stationed better in Normandy, and could of had a chance of stopping the invasion.

The Russian army was a disaster. The only thing that stopped Hitler from killing the country was the stupid mistake of not sending his full force to Moscow in one battle, instead of splitting it at Stalingrad and getting bogged down; his forces most likely would of defeated the Russian army. That, and that horrible Winter at Stalingrad. We spend two hours in class the other day with a whiteboard showing how Hitler could of horribly killed the Russians instead of the gridlock.

Not just that, but the fact that Hitler not only had to fight the Russians to the east, but the Allies to the west as well.


Edit due to above post:

The M16 is based off of the AK, hands down.
First USABLE nuclear device: America. Germany had almost twice as much funding, & more years spent on researching nuclear devices, but we got the bomb stable first.
Who brought the US out of the worst global depression: Roosevelt.
Who the **** gives a damn about what the Time says: Nobody.
Best artillery ever made: Howitzer, close 2nd, German Neberwerfer.
Who designed one of the best tanks ever made, the T-34. America.

[ItalianPenguin]

Who developed the first nuke... Germany <-----False, it was in development

Who was able to rally an entire nation coming out of the depression into unity, thus ensuring work for everyone... <----Yeah, great job he did. His country ended up in shambles after the war...then it was the US, UK, and Russia rebuilding the country
Who was voted person of the year by Time Magazine in 1938... <------Wonder why he didn't win in 1941-1945

You see... altough Hitler was crazy by starting WWII, he did some amazing things in his time. And Germany did have the best equipment and the best troops during World War II... the only problem was that they didn't have enough.
Agree on the best equipment and not enough of it. Yes, Hilter did do some good things...then he completely screwed the pooch.

Best is to forget him
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it

Just reminds me nowadays of how Certain countries are attacking other certain countries, Pointless war's have no winners,
You just always have to take a shot don't ya?

[Derek]

Who created the first mass produced fighter jet... Germany
I would hardly call that mass produced. The first fighter jet to be sure, but not mass produced.
Who took every bit of gold smelted from Jews' mouths and stuck it in their economy... America
Now thats just stupid.

Who developed the first nuke... Germany
Flat out wrong, they tried to develop a nuke, but never finished it. So the correct answer is America.

Who developed guided missles... Germany
Multiple countries developed guided missiles simultaneously during WWII, I can't remember who did it first, but they did not copy each other.

Who was voted person of the year by Time Magazine in 1938... Hitler
"Man of the Year" does not mean greatest, it means most influential. The Ayatollah Khomeini was person of the year in 1979, but he would hardly be called a great man.

[Wow Your Ugly]

You see... altough Hitler was crazy by starting WWII, he did some amazing things in his time.

Yeah, and you know he also did a little thing like slaughtering 6 million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other ethnic groups. But hey, that doesn't mean anything now does it?! :rolleyes:

A story I never get tired of hearing is Jesse Owens'. He won 4 gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Hah, that pwned Hitler. An African-American winning 4 gold medals, beating out his "superior race".

[YuriRuler90]

Jesus! In the time it took me to edit and ridicule him, somebody else did it for me! :p

[ItalianPenguin]

Jesus! In the time it took me to edit and ridicule him, somebody else did it for me! :p
Actually, it was two. :p

[Derek]

Who brought the US out of the worst global depression: Roosevelt.
Actually, the US wasn't clear of the Great Depression until WWII started. Roosevelt may have halted its progression, its hard to say, we can't see what would have happened without his policies, but he was unable to end it.

[Dracaveli]

the german Jet fighter was mass produce, however germany lacked pilots, an Hitler micro-managed the production, insisting that every 1 out of 3 fighters produce to be a jet bomber which did not serve no purpose since they did not have control of the skies, an the bombload that the jet bomber could carry was limited.


the basic American infantry squad set up is copied striaght out of the german nazi manual, ask any military scholar.

I don't think germany alone could have defeated russia, if japan had settled a peace treaty with china, an agreed to attack russia, then maybe russia would have been defeated with the strain of a two front war.

The view that if u take moscow, an the nation will somehow fail an admit defeat is stupdity, true Berlin fell an the nazi's capitulated, but Berlin was the last city taken in the war, the allied powers moved on all of germany, they did not leave sections of the nation in Axis hands while focusing on the capitol.

look no further to the rush to Bagdad, while neglecting the surrounding areas, even though u claim the capitol as yours, the area as a whole is still up in arms an u have become incircled. stuck in the capitol, with no credibility in the nation.

But the sheer size of the USSR is to vast for any 1 army to seize an hold ground, much of the attacks on german forces before the stalingrad and kiev disasters were done by partisan forces

Hitler's only hope for victory in russia was lost by his own decision, when german troops first entered russia the countryside welcomed german troops as liberators greeted them with flowers an parades, they had beleived the germans to be better then Stalin,but Hitler decided the slavs was subhuman

Many dont know that Jews before hitler's view was well known would attend nuremburg rallies an want to be nazi's, nazi's at that time was a rebellion among the civilized world. many citizens of surrounding nations including Stalin himself was facinated by Hitler's style of governace

giving the fact that Germany under nazism produce the lowest crime rate every recorded in world history , one can see why the citizens supported such leadership.

but in the end , Hitler's racial views destroyed his own ambitions of world dominace

[Derek]

The view that if u take moscow, an the nation will somehow fail an admit defeat is stupdity, true Berlin fell an the nazi's capitulated, but Berlin was the last city taken in the war, the allied powers moved on all of germany, they did not leave sections of the nation in Axis hands while focusing on the capitol.

look no further to the rush to Bagdad, while neglecting the surrounding areas, even though u claim the capitol as yours, the area as a whole is still up in arms an u have become incircled. stuck in the capitol, with no credibility in the nation.
The Allies didn't attack Berlin because they had agreed to let Stalin have it, not to mention that it is already in eastern Germany, thus closer to Stalin's armies.

giving the fact that Germany under nazism produce the lowest crime rate every recorded in world history , one can see why the citizens supported such leadership.
This is a trait of almost all totalitarian regimes, crime is virtually non-existant because the punishments are so cruel no one, no matter how low, decides its worth the risk. The USSR and China had similarly low crime rates as well.

[Dracaveli]

Ike knew attacking berlin will bring heavy losses, the sovs where willing to commit , America or britan didnt care if hitler held berlin, the war was all but over

the Soveits were wlling to waste lives just to claim Berlin.

as far as nuke development, true Germany was the nation responsible for much of the research into atomic power, but their scientist leading this field were mostly Jewish an fled the nation when hitler rose.


they had a few good members left , but funding for atomic research was all but halted, In the end atomic weapons did not play a large role in ww2. It hasten the surrender of Japan but was not the cause of their defeat, midway was....

the price for building atomic weapons at that time was high, i doubt if america could have sustain a large stockpile of atomic weapons an deployed them in battle, without superiority of the skies, enemy planes would have shot down the carrier, it would have been a match of atomic deployment vs jet interceptors with american airplanes suffering neglect in research since they would spend much of their funds on atomic weapons, the german lutfwaffe (under jet tech) would have proven the atomic weapon, carried by a slower moving aircraft inferior,

the atomic bomb is only effective when its armed

[Rolk]

A drunk monkey with no fingers could use a keyboard better then you Dracaveli.

[Derek]

the price for building atomic weapons at that time was high, i doubt if america could have sustain a large stockpile of atomic weapons an deployed them in battle, without superiority of the skies, enemy planes would have shot down the carrier, it would have been a match of atomic deployment vs jet interceptors with american airplanes suffering neglect in research since they would spend much of their funds on atomic weapons, the german lutfwaffe (under jet tech) would have proven the atomic weapon, carried by a slower moving aircraft inferior,
We already had air superiority, which was one reason why Germany's jets did nothing for them. Too little, too late.

[YuriRuler90]

Quote time.

Atomic weapons played even a larger part in WWII than any battle. The Japanese had millions of civilians trained in the last year of the war, and they would of fought to the death beside the regular troops.

At the battle of Midway, the Japanese did lose most of their fleet, yes. It contributed to the US owning most of the Pacific. That however, is almost naught, as we would of had to invade Japan itself, which could not of been accomplished by any naval fleet, but a large ground invasion.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima, and later, Nagasaki, killed over at least 300,000 people within a month. The effect was that the US looked like it had a LARGE number of nuclear devices under our command, and we wanted to scare the Japanese into surrendering. It happened to work, and saved millions of American and Japanese lives that would of been lost in an invasion.

[RICKRAIDER]

The germans were the first to succesfully split an atom. This of course helped America by sowing that it IS possible to build a nuke. However, a nuke was already in the works in Germany at 1943 but Hitler cancelled the program because he thought that this weapon would bring hopelessly too much destruction. He also feared that the chain reaction would set off a much bigger explosion and it may go out of control (something we know now ain't possible because of the critical density required to ignite one).

And BTW, Hitler did not kill the Jews. He wanted a true Aryan race, but he gave that job to a man named Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann. They developed the means of destruction to eliminate the jews.

Jets wasn't mass produced? What is the construction term then if you create 496 of it?

The german army was also by far the best trained force in the world. Recall that every Allied soldier thought that the war would be over by christmas 1944? And then the bulge happened, something considered to be impossible.

Every modern combat tactic and weapon is shaped after WWII. Reactive armor? The germans had already been using it near the end of the war.

Stop looking at the political side of WWII. Rather look at the technological advances that the world developed because of it. And the Allies only won because of attrition, not much else.

[NuclearDreams]

And the Allies only won because of attrition, not much else.

You are full of *****! The tactics the Americans used during WW2 are still being taught today in all U.S. military academies. It was the tactics, refusal to give up and the war machine at home that won WW2. Hitler's misjudgements on America's resolve were tactical failures even before the war began. You have to plan in your war fighting strategies the enemies willingness to continue a war even in the face of heavy losses. Which Hitler did not do.

[RICKRAIDER]

You mean the fire and manuever tactic? Well, gosh that ain't a very tough one now is it? And America only won the war by mass production. But of course, that was the tactic. No shame in that. I admit that Hitler was stupid in opening several fronts at the same time but he acknowledged that that should never happen because of a nation's massive decline of strength if it does.

You talk of determination? How in hell's name did the german army survive for such a long time and even strike a deafening blow when it was down? What do you call that?

And to everyone, a little truth: allied trucks took away all the nazi's gold bullion (which DID consist of gold tooth fillings from concentration camps...sorry Derek but that is the truth) and that ended up in America's economy. Today there are still some people that suffered during WWII who try to get back some of their property but they are stumped by blunt answers and nothing happens.

[Derek]

The germans were the first to succesfully split an atom. This of course helped America by sowing that it IS possible to build a nuke. However, a nuke was already in the works in Germany at 1943 but Hitler cancelled the program because he thought that this weapon would bring hopelessly too much destruction. He also feared that the chain reaction would set off a much bigger explosion and it may go out of control (something we know now ain't possible because of the critical density required to ignite one).
And the Americans were the first to successfully start and control and chain reaction. You can look at all the little milestones if you want, but what really matters is who made the finished version first.

And BTW, Hitler did not kill the Jews. He wanted a true Aryan race, but he gave that job to a man named Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann. They developed the means of destruction to eliminate the jews.
And you think Hitler was oblivious to this?

Jets wasn't mass produced? What is the construction term then if you create 496 of it?
Compared to 15,875 Mustangs produced? I suppose it might technically be mass production, but mass production for a couple of months doesn't amount to much.

[RICKRAIDER]

You're right. We can go on bickering about all these strengths for practically forever. The point is this:

* Hitler was one of the best rulers in the world until 1939
* He did have evil intentions (the holocaust, etc)
* He did lose the war and his regime was toppled

BUT

* He made the most fearsome army in the world
* His countries engineers created some pretty high tech equipment
* He did lead one heck of a battle with almost 4 fronts open

I'm just pissed at all the people who say "f*** hitler". Sure he killed 6 million innocent people but do you know the total casualties of world war II? Basically it was a big f***-up for nothing and I hope to God that another one does not break out. This will eventually wipe out the human race.

[Dracaveli]

as far as the atomic bomb , it did not play a major role in ww2, Japan was gowing to figh tto the death an the allies were going to invade, problem lies in which allied power was to invade first.

America undertook perperations, but were surprsied when russia finally declared war on Japan in 1945, the rush to take Japan was on. Russia swept into manchuria an Stalin made clear his desire to take japan itself, the Allied powers could of let the Soveits do what they do best (waste lives) as they did in berlin but america did not want the soviets to become the strongest victor in ww2, the atomic bomb was dropped for 3 reasons,


1. to shorten the war.
2. to stop soviets from gaining japan
3. americans wanted revenge

but the battle of midway as i said cost japan the war, with the aircraft carriers gone, japan could do little to stop allied dominace of the sea, true they could posistion crafts on inland runways, but then u wont have enough to stem the combine effect of allied aircraft, naval bombardment, an troop landings

the absence of japan naval air power, meant they could never again pose a threat to surface ships , as u know the surface ships carried goods, an men to battle which cost japan the war

as far as Hitler saying he didn twant the atomic bomb fo rfear of its destructive power thats false, Hitler gave speeches in which he stated that germany was currently working on a bomb that no matter of walls could defend, Hitler even during the last few weeks in the bunker trusted that the a-bomb was still coming and will turn the war into the favor of the axis once again.

it was only till late in the war were jets mass produce, much bigger was the v-1 an V-2 projects which were produce in the ten's of thousands, but massive allied air-raids smashed them to bits...had germany balanced out their projects an waited till the original date of 1945 to start war, then it could have been a different story...after all Hitler promised the navy not just one Bizmark but a whole fleet before any war is started

We already had air superiority, which was one reason why Germany's jets did nothing for them. Too little, too late.

Had america commited itself to victory solely from atomic weaponry, other armed services would have suffered extreme shortfalls, since the atomic bomb did not appear till late 1945, jet tech would have countered the slow moving atomic carrier

[Derek]

America undertook perperations, but were surprsied when russia finally declared war on Japan in 1945, the rush to take Japan was on.
We weren't surprised the Soviet declared war on Japan, we had agreed on the exact date at Yalta. It all went exactly as planned.

but the battle of midway as i said cost japan the war, with the aircraft carriers gone, japan could do little to stop allied dominace of the sea, true they could posistion crafts on inland runways, but then u wont have enough to stem the combine effect of allied aircraft, naval bombardment, an troop landings

the absence of japan naval air power, meant they could never again pose a threat to surface ships , as u know the surface ships carried goods, an men to battle which cost japan the war
They doomed to lose, yes, but to have staged an actual invasion would have cost millions of casualties on all sides. The atomic bombs did have a major affect by sparing both sides probably another year or more and countless deaths. It was quite possible that the Japanese could have even repulsed an attempted invasion, which would have put them on a level where they could bargain for a better deal in peace.

as far as Hitler saying he didn twant the atomic bomb fo rfear of its destructive power thats false, Hitler gave speeches in which he stated that germany was currently working on a bomb that no matter of walls could defend, Hitler even during the last few weeks in the bunker trusted that the a-bomb was still coming and will turn the war into the favor of the axis once again.
By the end of the war Hitler was a disillusioned psycho. He couldn't think straight, and a lot of historians think that many of his commanders were probably lieing to him at this point.

Had america commited itself to victory solely from atomic weaponry, other armed services would have suffered extreme shortfalls, since the atomic bomb did not appear till late 1945, jet tech would have countered the slow moving atomic carrier
Yes, probably, but we didn't do that, now did we?

[RICKRAIDER]

as far as Hitler saying he didn twant the atomic bomb fo rfear of its destructive power thats false
It's true Drac. He did consider using the bomb but he layed off development because:

*He was afraid of it's destructive power
*He did not see the need for it

He did comment on it's possible usage near the end of the war, but by that time his deuterium plants was bombed into submission and it became a fantasy. He only saw it as a last resort, not as a main offensive weapon.

I agree completely with you about the outcome of the war had Hitler waited till '45. For all of you out there not familiar with the ME 262, it was a war winner. Had they been available in quantity before 1944, the outcome of the war would have changed for sure. I quote from several US pilots who encountered these machines during bombing runs. They simply dived down on bomber formations and completely ripped them to shreds. It was capable of carrying heavy weaponry whereas the P-51 was only capable of carrying 6 .50 cal machineguns. They were completely outmatched...

Oh sure...had the US been repelled during d-day they would have dropped a nuclear device on germany. Do you really believe that Hitler would have surrendered? No. Instead they would have continued with the nuke production (keeping in mind that because the allies did not have air superiority, they would not have been able to destroy Telemark and other deuterium facilities) and they would've sticked them in guided missles.

BTW, germany crippled the soviets. Had world war II not been started by Hitler, it would have been started by Stalin.

Only my opinion, mind you...

[Wow Your Ugly]

I'm just pissed at all the people who say "f*** hitler". Sure he killed 6 million innocent people but do you know the total casualties of world war II? Basically it was a big f***-up for nothing and I hope to God that another one does not break out. This will eventually wipe out the human race.

**** Hitler.

Killing 6 million innocent people is not a light thing! You toss the statistic around like it is nothing. My great-great grandparents and their families were all killed by the Nazi's in Poland. One day, my great-grandmother went down to the cellar to get jam. It just so happened that turned out to be when the Nazi's raided their house (yes they were Jewish) and murdered everyone.


So yeah, **** Hitler. **** Auschwitz, **** Josef Mengle and his sadistic and inhumane "experiments.

**** the Nazis.

[IgmaanDigneet]

^^ Amen to that.

[RICKRAIDER]

I'm sorry that happened. But what would you say about all the innocents getting killed in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan?

Collateral damage? Or do you have the same sympathy for them as you have for the lost souls of Auschwitz or Bergen Belsen or Dachau?

War is a terrible thing that should never happen, yet the human race is still too stupid and foolish to understand that.

[NuclearDreams]

I'm sorry that happened. But what would you say about all the innocents getting killed in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan?

Collateral damage? Or do you have the same sympathy for them as you have for the lost souls of Auschwitz or Bergen Belsen or Dachau?

War is a terrible thing that should never happen, yet the human race is still too stupid and foolish to understand that.

Hey dumbass, comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to the holocaust is like comparing you with Einstein. The Americans are not commiting genocide, so stow that crap you retard. :nuts:

For your info, there has never been a war without collateral damage, and yes some wars are necessary.

[RICKRAIDER]

I didn't compare Iraq to the holocaust you idiot. I am talking about the whole picture of innocents getting killed unnecessarily.

And anyone who thinks it is obligatory to kill every living creature during a useless thing like war should go and hang himself.

[NuclearDreams]

I didn't compare Iraq to the holocaust you idiot. I am talking about the whole picture of innocents getting killed unnecessarily.

And anyone who thinks it is obligatory to kill every living creature during a useless thing like war should go and hang himself.

"Or do you have the same sympathy for them as you have for the lost souls of Auschwitz or Bergen Belsen or Dachau?"

That is not a comparison? You are warped. It's assholes like you who have tried from the beginning to compare the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with Vietnam and the Jewish holocaust. Do us all a favor and go throw yourself in front of a train.

[RICKRAIDER]

JHC, I don't approve of a war at all dammit. It's people like you who justify the means of getting innocents killed for a better cause. What cause!?!?! There isn't any!! Why don't you join the army, go and fight in a warzone and come to realize that there is only agony and sadness to be found there.

The human race would never, ever progress to a higher potential if the world is ridden with the mindset that you have. Grow up or go drown yourself.

[YuriRuler90]

Rick, you try and win by shoving your opinion down people's throats, then trying to make up facts to back it up.

The USA had only half the time, and half the funding of Germany, yet were able ot develop the atomic reaction first. PERIOD.

The USA had reasons for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, and they had a large part in ending the war. PERIOD.

The Germans had the best trained army in the world, yes. BECAUSE THEY TRAINED FOR OVER FIVE SOLID YEARS.

[Dracaveli]

The USA had reasons for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, and they had a large part in ending the war. PERIOD.quote]

the war was over months before the bomb was drop. the a-bomb in no way served as a large part in the war, it marked the begining of a new era, but ww2 for the axis was lost in 1944, it was just drawn out for another year

[quote=RICKRAIDER]
BTW, germany crippled the soviets. Had world war II not been started by Hitler, it would have been started by Stalin.

Only my opinion, mind you...


if ww2 wasnt started by hitler it would have been started by Ernst Rohm

Hitler was not the only top german wishing for another war.....it was lucky for the west that Hitler came to power, his racial views hurt any german a-bomb plans.

Stalin was purging his army, he was not focus on world domination. i doubt if the red army would have fought for Stalin as they did without being provoked by the German invasion considering the purges Stalin did to them

[NuclearDreams]

JHC, I don't approve of a war at all dammit. It's people like you who justify the means of getting innocents killed for a better cause. What cause!?!?! There isn't any!! Why don't you join the army, go and fight in a warzone and come to realize that there is only agony and sadness to be found there.

The human race would never, ever progress to a higher potential if the world is ridden with the mindset that you have. Grow up or go drown yourself.

I served my time in the military *****head, and I saw the innocent and the guilty suffer. That does not change the fact that you know nothing about the subject being spoken here, so stop stalling you sissy and throw yourself on those tracks.

[RICKRAIDER]

Ah ryt...here we go.

Yuriruler: Please show me any facts that I have made up during this thread. I'm a person who likes to debate, but I never make facts up as I go. Please don't refer to the "developed a nuke" thing, coz I never said that Germany had a fully working prototype to test. They had developed the means to build one though but they did not have the resources.

Dracaveli: In my post I was referring to Germany as a whole, not specifically to Hitler. Its my mistake that I did not point it out... and remember that I stated that part as my own opinion so don't call me out.

And nucleardreams: You're ****ed up. When you have spent time in a war, you must have realised that it isn't a good thing. Man, killing people and counting them off as collateral damage should be avoided. Hell, war should be avoided. If you're telling me that war can be justified...it cannot, for everyone always suffers. Solutions can be found over a table instead of using bullets.

[Derek]

And nucleardreams: You're ****ed up. When you have spent time in a war, you must have realised that it isn't a good thing. Man, killing people and counting them off as collateral damage should be avoided. Hell, war should be avoided. If you're telling me that war can be justified...it cannot, for everyone always suffers. Solutions can be found over a table instead of using bullets.
Yeah, lets just give them Austria. They want more? Alright, they can have half of Checkslovakia, that will be their last request. What? They took the whole thing? Alright, let them have it, we don't want a war, this is their last demand for sure. :rolleyes:


At some point you're going to have to stop living in your fantasy world. No one wants a war, but sometimes its the only option. And in all wars, there will be collateral damage and innocent people will die, noone wants them to die, and we try our best to avoid it, but its inevitable and an unfortunately necessary sacrifice.

[RICKRAIDER]

Then nuke the world to eliminate any probable future enemies. Create a single state to rule everyone. Kill thousands of millions of people because they may be a future threat to your reign. Kill your own people because they rise against you. Kill your advisers because they give you bad news. And then, when you've killed every last human being, take a shot at your own brain to end your miserable, depressed life. Humans would be extinct, which is probably for the best, seeing as we cannot even live in peace with anything that talks back.

In short, the human race is a ****ed up lot. End of story.

[YuriRuler90]

Then nuke the world to eliminate any probable future enemies. Create a single state to rule everyone. Kill thousands of millions of people because they may be a future threat to your reign. Kill your own people because they rise against you. Kill your advisers because they give you bad news. And then, when you've killed every last human being, take a shot at your own brain to end your miserable, depressed life.


You actually just stated Hitler's reign, word for word. :lol:

the war was over months before the bomb was drop. the a-bomb in no way served as a large part in the war

I was talking about the Pacific Theater, not the European one.



Remember kiddies, soldier go to war to fix whatever the Politicians **** up; which means we're always going to have conflicts, as long as there is free will.

[RICKRAIDER]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RICKRAIDER
Then nuke the world to eliminate any probable future enemies. Create a single state to rule everyone. Kill thousands of millions of people because they may be a future threat to your reign. Kill your own people because they rise against you. Kill your advisers because they give you bad news. And then, when you've killed every last human being, take a shot at your own brain to end your miserable, depressed life.



You actually just stated Hitler's reign, word for word. :lol:

Dude, that was the point.:rockbrow:

[Mr.BillCollector]

Alot of folks around here think they know everything dont they? (^^)

Most fearsome army? I dont think so man. I still give that one to the romans. Plus, being in the military once upon time let me see the US military up close and personal, and its pretty fearsome indeed. Anyway, I think you and drac are giving hitler way too much credit. I dont even feel like typing all these "facts" like you and drac cuase I really dont have the time, and Im not gonna argue with you. But really, too much undeserved praise.

Hitler was THE man in charge, but he had thousands of subordinates doing many of the tasks he needed done. Just like the president does today. Colin Powell may draft a U.S. policy position, but George Bush assumes responsibility, good and bad. You make it sound as if Hitler was at the forefront of all the advances and military victories. The fact the german army was so great and well led had to do with the strength and pesistance of the german people themselves, who were very industrious.

If anything, Hitler makes those german people look bad. He still lost the war, blew his brains out (he even killed his dog man) and was responsible for the murder of millons. Oh yeh, rickraider said he gave that job to someone else. Remember, he RESPONSIBLE for it no matter what. Quit riding Hitler and the Nazi's nuts guys. They suck.

[RICKRAIDER]

Sorry, my bad. Hitler wasn't wholly responsible for the best army in the world during the timespace of 1935-44. He didn't create it all by himself, yes, but he was responsible for the idea of it, as you stated.

BTW this thread is about the nazi's so don't change the topic. :|

Kewl, I'm a sergeant :) lol

[Derek]

Most fearsome army? I dont think so man. I still give that one to the romans.
Most fearsome ever? Easily the Mongols. Not only did they use gruesome shock tactics against their opponents that would put fear in the hearts of anyone, they never lost a battle. Ever*. The only reason they collapsed is because ever time an emperor died, all the family members (who were the generals) went all the way back to Mongolia to pick a new ruler. This would take several years during which their armies, without their generals, would be pushed back.


*Ok, they did fail two invasions of Japan, the Mongols never really had a navy, and they also had trouble conquering southern China, but all the forces of Central Asia, Arabia, and Europe couldn't stop them.

[Mr.BillCollector]

Or even the mongols yes, they qualify too. But nazi germany? hardly the most fearsome ever. And thats right rickraider, he was responsible for the idea of the nazi army and all that, but it was a BAD IDEA! A BAD IDEA! The truth is, Hitler cant be really commended for anything he did. He was a dickface and the world is better for having lost him.

[RICKRAIDER]

It was the most fearsome army in the 20th century.

I agree that the mongols was a truly fearsome army. Sorry... the most fearsome army ever.

[Mr.BillCollector]

It was the most fearsome army in the 20th century.

I agree that the mongols was a truly fearsome army. Sorry... the most fearsome army ever.

Nope, they dont even qualify as the most fearsome army of the 20th century. They were ripped to shreds by by 1945 and nothing is left of them. Theyre finished. They dont even qualify as the most fearsome army of the 40's dude. Theyre losers.

[RICKRAIDER]

Then what nation had the most fearsome army, eh? Don't even think of telling me it was America, bacause their army wasn't fearsome. Powerful, but not fearsome.

[Derek]

Then what nation had the most fearsome army, eh? Don't even think of telling me it was America, bacause their army wasn't fearsome. Powerful, but not fearsome.
I'ld say it would be a close call between the Soviets and Nazis in WWII, both were powerful, and both were brutal.

[RICKRAIDER]

Remember that the world feared the Nazi's immensely before and during the early stages of the war. And the nazi's does have the evil advantage, so my vote would be the nazi's.

The russians were fearsome but only during the latter stages of the war...

[ChopBam]

RICKRAIDER, would it be worth it to start a war to try to stop one?

[Mr.BillCollector]

Remember that the world feared the Nazi's immensely before and during the early stages of the war. And the nazi's does have the evil advantage, so my vote would be the nazi's.

The russians were fearsome but only during the latter stages of the war...

Its all a matter of opinion, not fact. Hitler was stupid, and his nazi war machine ground to a halt. They got beat. It was a tough fight, sure, but they got beat. Maybe the japs wernt as technology advanced, but they had true warrior spirits and they were fearsome as well. Its my opinion. But the nazi war machine, the subject of this thread, failed and got beat. Thats a fact. And most nazis were not evil. Hitler and his henchman were. I think G.W. Bush is evil, but not all republicans. And americans didnt fear hitler, Im sure samoans didnt fear hitler, or the austrailions for that matter. Europe feared hiter, but rightfully so. But not the world as you said. Anyways, no matter what you say, the end result is going to be the same. The nazi war machine was defeated, hitler is dead, and his armys never achieved thier final goals.

[RICKRAIDER]

RICKRAIDER, would it be worth it to start a war to try to stop one?

Hmmm...gimme a minute on this one...

Well, to start a war to avert one is almost equal to not trying to avert one at all. The problem then lays with the interests and the amount of possible damage that can occur and who it will affect. If it was me...well, my country doesn't have the capability to take pre-emptive strikes or to stop a major offensive so I guess I'm ****ed. :eek:

Its all a matter of opinion, not fact. Hitler was stupid, and his nazi war machine ground to a halt. They got beat. It was a tough fight, sure, but they got beat. Maybe the japs wernt as technology advanced, but they had true warrior spirits and they were fearsome as well. Its my opinion. But the nazi war machine, the subject of this thread, failed and got beat. Thats a fact. And most nazis were not evil. Hitler and his henchman were. I think G.W. Bush is evil, but not all republicans. And americans didnt fear hitler, Im sure samoans didnt fear hitler, or the austrailions for that matter. Europe feared hiter, but rightfully so. But not the world as you said. Anyways, no matter what you say, the end result is going to be the same. The nazi war machine was defeated, hitler is dead, and his armys never achieved thier final goals.

As you said, it's only a matter of opinion. And that usually means that no one is right, right?

[Mr.BillCollector]

As you said, it's only a matter of opinion. And that usually means that no one is right, right?

Right, especially you. But I am right when I say the nazi war machine is defeated. Thats not my opinion, thats a well known fact.

[RICKRAIDER]

You mad at me BillCollector? :lol:

But of course I know of the fact that hitler was defeated. But that is not the essence of this discussion or rather, flame, is it?

[Mr.BillCollector]

You mad at me BillCollector? :lol:

But of course I know of the fact that hitler was defeated. But that is not the essence of this discussion or rather, flame, is it?

No dude, Im not mad at you, dont be silly. I would hate to think I was that immature. I said the NAZI WAR MACHINE was defeated, and the nazi war machine is the "essence" of this discussion, or rather, flame. Anyways, Ive grown tired of this flame, so if you direct anymore response to me, I probaly wont answer. Thanks everybody! This threads been great!

[Dracaveli]

[quote=Mr.BillCollector]Hitler was THE man in charge, but he had thousands of subordinates doing many of the tasks he needed done. Just like the president does today. Colin Powell may draft a U.S. policy position, but George Bush assumes responsibility, good and bad. You make it sound as if Hitler was at the forefront of all the advances and military victories. quote]

Hitler had full control over the military, no one could make a decision unless they had Hitler's personal approval, the reason why the panzer divs did not attack the beaches of normandy during the allied landings was that Hitler made it clear no units will be deployed unless he alone give the order...Rommel himself had to wait until hitler rose the next morning to get the ok for any action taken.....Hitler micro managed the army into ruin, he was the designer of the battle of the bulge an many other failed german attacks.

im with u , this may be my last post on this topic...man i need a drink

[Statalyzer]

You know, I started this thread to argue with Drac but he's actually making a lot more sense right now. Only thing I'd really disagree with is Midway. It was the turning point of the war in one sense, but we were going to win anyway even if we had lost at Midway.

The german army was also by far the best trained force in the world. Recall that every Allied soldier thought that the war would be over by christmas 1944? And then the bulge happened, something considered to be impossible.

The Germans lost the Battle of the Bulge. The Battle began on Dec. 16th and the Western Allies hadn't even reached the Rhine yet, so by that point, no matter what any soldier thought, the war was not going to be over in 1944.

Rather look at the technological advances that the world developed because of it. And the Allies only won because of attrition, not much else.

I guess grand strategy, logistical planning, and technology research all amount to "not much else." :rolleyes: The only side that won because of attrition was Russia. Now the USA could have beaten Japan just by attrition also, but the Battle of the Phillipine Sea meant we didn't have to.

The Germans had better training for the most part, better tactics, and in some cases, better advanced designs (tanks, jets, missiles, SP artillery), but you can't just look at those and say the Germans had better forces, just not enough of them. Don't be so selective.

The Russians for example, were the owners of some kickass mortars that made their defending infantry units very dangerous. For most of the war, the USA and Britian built better escorts than the Germans built subs. The USA had heavy bombers that nobody else could match, etc. The P-51 Mustang, with the US design and the British engine, outclassed even some really good German fighters. The Russians had the T-34 to start the war which was a big shock to the undergunned, underpowered panzers. By the time the Germans produced a tank that could match the T-34c, the Russians had upgraded it and still had the best tank in the world. The Panther was better but it didn't enter service until Mid-43. And even then, it wasn't really ready for service, it was pressed in too early and a lot of them broke down.

This idea that the Germans had the better armed forces and only lost because they were outnumbered 3 to 1 and their opponents could build a lot more of their crappier forces, isn't really true.

[RICKRAIDER]

Have you ever heard of the great supply crises in ETO? That hit the allies pretty hard cause Patton had just been rushing forward and forward. The plan was to capture Antwerp to gain a strategic port to resupply the troops which of course did not happen soon enough. The logistical planning went a little awry there...

To compare the equipment of the allies versus the germans is pretty easy. It was a matter of quantity versus quality. Recall that a lot of allied soldiers (particularly the british) chucked away their weapons and switched it for MP-40's, Stg's and MG-42's. That is truely unarguable coz it is pure fact. The sherman tank was also wholly inferior to the more heavily built tigers and panthers because they were built for mobile assaults (like the early german tanks during the Blitzkrieg).There were many accounts of single tigers taking out 7 - 12 sherman tanks in one blow. (There were also many heroic accounts of sherman tankers who outwitted the enemy by firing white phosphorous shells at inexperienced german tank crews. The particles was sucked into the tank via the circulation system and the crew quickly popped out with their hands on their heads.)

As for the Bulge, well, the commanders were already setting their final sights on Christmas '44 before D-day and with Patton rushing forward it seemed possible. Then operation Market Garden failed and the winter struck. Several american divisions was sent to the hurtgen forest to protect it's flank and then the impossible happened. The germans made a push into the fragile american lines at bastogne. This was like 14 pound sledgehammer stroke that struck at the allied commanders belief of a quick victory.

Lastly, let me define attrition (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Attrition)):

b. (military) A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death.

[Dracaveli]

the 101st airborne has never accepted the Patton resuce story in the battle of the bulge, they state that they didnt need patton at all.

[Derek]

Have you ever heard of the great supply crises in ETO? That hit the allies pretty hard cause Patton had just been rushing forward and forward. The plan was to capture Antwerp to gain a strategic port to resupply the troops which of course did not happen soon enough. The logistical planning went a little awry there...
Yeah, that didn't go very well. They tried to go too far, too fast.

The sherman tank was also wholly inferior to the more heavily built tigers and panthers because they were built for mobile assaults (like the early german tanks during the Blitzkrieg).There were many accounts of single tigers taking out 7 - 12 sherman tanks in one blow. (There were also many heroic accounts of sherman tankers who outwitted the enemy by firing white phosphorous shells at inexperienced german tank crews. The particles was sucked into the tank via the circulation system and the crew quickly popped out with their hands on their heads.)
What is important to note though, is that the Sherman was never designed to take out other tanks. In an ideal tactical situation, the Sherman would never fight a German tank. Obviously, nothing is ever perfect, but if a Sherman encountered a German tank, it was supposed to run away unless it had nearby support. We had another anti-tank vehicle designed to take out the German tanks (I can't remember its official name, but its nickname was the "Shoot and Scoot", there was a segment on it on Mail Call once). The Sherman served its intended purpose excellantly, it was fast and very reliable (later German tanks were notoriously unreliable), not to mention very easy to produce. It should also be mentioned that the Sherman was equal to the German tanks at the beginning of the war, it was only the later German tanks, which were designed to fight the heavier Soviet tanks, that the Sherman couldn't match in a gunfight.

[RICKRAIDER]

We had another anti-tank vehicle designed to take out the German tanks (I can't remember its official name, but its nickname was the "Shoot and Scoot", there was a segment on it on Mail Call once).
In fact the US had two anti-tank vehicles known as the M-10 and M-18 Hellcat. The M-10 had a 76.2 mm M7 gun and the Hellcat had the much better 76.2 mm M1A1 gun, which was very useful against the german medium-heavy tanks. They also performed quite adequately against the heavier versions of german tanks but they didn't excel at it.

...it was fast and very reliable (later German tanks were notoriously unreliable),...
The reason of the unreliability of the German tanks was the fact that repair crews were almost non-existent. The Allies on the other hand had the best repair crews in the world: when an allied tank broke down it was immediatly taken to a repair unit, where they worked for days to get it up and running. The Germans abandoned their vehicles if they broke down because repairs and equipment were unavailable most of the time.

The Sherman served its intended purpose excellantly.
I said that in my previous post didn't I?

the 101st airborne has never accepted the Patton resuce story in the battle of the bulge, they state that they didnt need patton at all.
Yeah, I had read that in Band of Brothers. Had they been better equipped they would have survived without Patton. Easily.

[smilodon]

Yeah, I had read that in Band of Brothers. Had they been better equipped they would have survived without Patton. Easily. Had Hitler had a super world domination weapon he would have won easily, however, he did not, so it is useless to argue about what might have happened had something that didn't happen, happen.

[Dracaveli]

its not arguement of what if's, those are the words from the men that were there.

[RICKRAIDER]

Exactly.

[Statalyzer]

The German tanks were also more unreliable because of their larger size and weight, and because they often rushed them into service too quickly (especially the Panther). They were so desperate to fight the battle of Kursk with a better tank than the Russians had, that they delayed the battle so they could have the Panther in service. All it did was let the Russians build up an assload of defenses.

Have you ever heard of the great supply crises in ETO? That hit the allies pretty hard cause Patton had just been rushing forward and forward. The plan was to capture Antwerp to gain a strategic port to resupply the troops which of course did not happen soon enough. The logistical planning went a little awry there...

The logistical plannning involved in moving so many divisions across the ocean and the channel was still pretty impressive. There wasn't much they could have done to get that many supplies that quickly to an entire army rushing miles and miles ahead of everyone else. They could have kept supplying Patton IF they had slowed down the rest of the army. But they made the right decision to let the rest of the army catch up. Patton's divisions weren't going to rush all the way to Berlin on their own with no support.

To compare the equipment of the allies versus the germans is pretty easy. It was a matter of quantity versus quality. Recall that a lot of allied soldiers (particularly the british) chucked away their weapons and switched it for MP-40's, Stg's and MG-42's. That is truely unarguable coz it is pure fact. The sherman tank was also wholly inferior to the more heavily built tigers and panthers because they were built for mobile assaults

But again, that's selective comparison. In other areas of the armed forces the Allies had better technology. Also, the Allies upgraded the Sherman and starting building the long-76mm version which outclassed the Pz. IV. Then in 1945 they came out with the Pershing, which was arguably better than the Tiger. It was heavier than the Panther but faster than the Tiger and a great balance between the attiributes of medium and heavy tanks. We just didn't get to use them much since we won the war a few months later. The Russians also had a similar tank to the Pershing, the JS-II. Then at the very end of the war they came out with the JS-III, easily the best tank of the war if you consider it a WW2 tank. Most people consider it a cold war tank since it was so advanced and barely made it into combat.

As for the Bulge, well, the commanders were already setting their final sights on Christmas '44 before D-day and with Patton rushing forward it seemed possible. Then operation Market Garden failed and the winter struck. Several american divisions was sent to the hurtgen forest to protect it's flank and then the impossible happened.

Agreed. At that point, they still thought they could end the war in 1944.

The germans made a push into the fragile american lines at bastogne. This was like 14 pound sledgehammer stroke that struck at the allied commanders belief of a quick victory.

However, by December 16th, there was no way they could have ended the war in 1944, no matter what happened. Also, let's not forget the Allies won the Battle of the Bulge. They won it so decisively in the end that it probably shortened, not lengthened, the war. The Germans had wasted their valuable panzer reserve to no avail with no hope of recovery.

(military) A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death.

Well then, every war is won by attrition. If you don't reduce the enemy army by killing them, you aren't going to beat them. What I mean is they didn't just win by having much crappier forces, but having so many of them they afford to lose so much more that they kept throwing crappy forces at the enemy until they wore them down.

Think Grant in the US Civil War. Everyone who tried to outwit Robert E. Lee failed, so Grant just said look the North has more than twice the resources, let's just forget about outsmarting them, attack them head on over and over and even if we lose a lot more men, they'll run out before we do.

Now, Russia did that for the most part. In general, the Russians had crappier forces and tactics, but the Germans actually had the crappier tanks. But their superior small-unit tactics and communications made up for it most of time early on.

[im_doooomed]

I think I've learned more in this thread about WWII and Hitler/the Allies then I have ever learned in school or history books :p

[RICKRAIDER]

Very correct. I agree with most of your statements.

Just a little bit of information: the Battle of Kursk was not only delayed for the panther tanks but also for the elefant tank destroyer (which performed horridly against the russian counterparts).

And the pershing was much better balanced than the tiger and even the king tiger (although the king tiger had much better armor and a better main cannon than the pershing, it did lack it's power-to-weight ratio because it used the same powerplant as the tiger mk1).

[Dracaveli]

by far though, best tank of ww2 was the t-34, the slope armor an track belt was inovative, to bad America pass on the idea, lucky that germany didnt seize it either

in reality also this is the 1940's automobiles were fairly new so was mechanized warfare, i think all nations had severe flaws in their designs.

non of them were really equipped for desert or severe winter weather, russia was to a degree, but remember their army didnt attack during the severe blizzards, they had limitations just as well as the germans, but the german units in russia did not have any chance at survival in that bitter cold,

im still wondering how does a entire army freezes to death, it just doesnt make sense

[smilodon]

Cars had been around since 1885, they were hardly new. And an army can freeze to death if they are not sent the right clothes to potect them from the winter, as Hitler did in Russia.

[Dracaveli]

cars cost a bundled back then, the average citizen in any nation could not afford one, hell most military's could not afford to mechanized their entire army....

depends if the german army was inside a city, (which they did not retreat to the ones they conquered an instead held on to their gains in the open russian country) then they would have survived the blizzard even without supplies from Germany.

[Derek]

cars cost a bundled back then, the average citizen in any nation could not afford one, hell most military's could not afford to mechanized their entire army....
Except in the US. In 1908 Henry Ford began producing the Model T, a car designed to be cheap enough for the common man. At first it was still somewhat pricey at $850, although still a lot cheaper than its competitors ($2000-$3000), but as the manufacturing process was refined, the price continued to drop, by the time production stopped in 1927 it was easily affordable at $300 ($3,300 in 2005 dollars) and cars had become common place in the US. By the end of WWII cars were so common that advertisements now espoused owning not one, but two cars, and the Eisenhower started the construction of the Interstate-Highway system.

(All number are from Wikipedia)

[Dracaveli]

u forget one thing mate.the great depression

prior to ww2 cars were not affordable to those suffering from the depression

[Derek]

u forget one thing mate.the great depression

prior to ww2 cars were not affordable to those suffering from the depression
Yes, but that couldn't reverse the fact that America had already developed a car culture. The cars didn't suddenly just disappear, they just weren't driven as much (because owners couldn't afford the gas except when absolutely necessary) and in some cases were sold, but that doesn't remove them from existance. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath? Classic depression novel (to be specific, dust bowls), there is a whole chapter near the beginning devoted to a car dealership selling old cars ("Jalopies") to dust bowl stricken farmers heading to California. Obviously the car market took a hit, but cars continued to be a common fixture in America.

[Mr.BillCollector]

u forget one thing mate.the great depression

prior to ww2 cars were not affordable to those suffering from the depression


Do you just make up your facts? Get a life. Like the dude actually forgot the depression when he was making his point. Shut up and die.

[Dracaveli]

gas was not a problem, it was the cost of cars itself during the great depression that kept ownership away from them, that an the fact that Henry ford was racist towards jews, which led to a boycott of sorts from americans an others in the know, do your research

your great henry ford smuggled oil to the nazi regime through nuetral spain, most of the officials knew he was strongly racist towards the jews an many in governace distant themselves from the ford company

poetic justice serves them right in todays car market

Prescott Bush, GWBjr's great grandfather funded an fully supported the nazi regime in the 1930's, ...


did u hear about the latest release of the pentagon finding that marines killed kids in haditha Iraq, an also that the NSA spied on 3501 americans without court order, yet u claim i am lying when i stand byt my words that american officials are spying on u as well as me.

edit : before rolk and every other bandwagon hopper comes here an say , u didnt add a period or cross your t's

surley if my post confuses them to that degree. then they do not read the newspapers, because the amount of mistypes and misprint in papers will drive them insane:muahaha:

[Derek]

gas was not a problem, it was the cost of cars itself during the great depression that kept ownership away from them, that an the fact that Henry ford was racist towards jews, which led to a boycott of sorts from americans an others in the know, do your research
The Great Depression greatly slowed the spread of cars, but considering how many were being driven already, cars didn't disappear. Its not like the Great Depression hit and cars began to magically vanish. Ownership was common before the Great Depression and didn't go down during the Depression, at all.

And I know Henry Ford was anti-semetic, so was Charles Lindberg, however any attempted boycott would have had little affect on Ford, too few people fighting too great a design. At one point, 90% of the cars in the world were Model T's, no boycott by a few people is going to stop that.

surley if my post confuses them to that degree. then they do not read the newspapers, because the amount of mistypes and misprint in papers will drive them insane :muahaha:
Umm, newspapers have very few misprints, you on the other hand, seem to be unable to make a single sentence without some error, so you shouldn't even go there.

[Dracaveli]

people sold almost everything in the depression, cars just could not be maintained, people were in dire straits during the depression

[Lazzars]

unless they lived out of them, traveling workers used them to move between jobs and to save on paying rent

[Derek]

people sold almost everything in the depression, cars just could not be maintained, people were in dire straits during the depression
And who do you think they sold them to? Some cars would have changed hands, but they would still be there, no net loss in the number of cars. You're also forgetting that although the Great Depression was a hard time for sure, its not like everyone didn't have a job. At its worse, unemployment was 25%, but thats still 75% of the population getting an income that can keep, although not extensively use, a car if it already had one.

[Statalyzer]

by far though, best tank of ww2 was the t-34, the slope armor an track belt was inovative

Agreed. The T-34's track belt was a huge advantage. It was the fastest main battle tank of the war (and faster than many light tanks!), even though the original (and most common) model, the T-34c, was a earlywar/prewar tank. It also helped that the wheels did not interlock like the German wheels did - often the German wheels frozen together when water got inbetween them in the winter.

But I wouldn't call it the best tank of the war. The Pershing and JS-III were probably better, although they both came out in 1945 so some would consider them more properly post-war tanks. But the T-34/85, the upgrade from the c with a better gun and heavier armor (without reducing speed), while rather badass, wasn't really better than the Panther. It's hard to say which tank was better because the Germans had mechanical problems while the Russians had communication problems. My opinion was that, when it worked, the Panther was the best tank of the war, although some would reasonably disagree.

[IgmaanDigneet]

My opinion was that, when it worked, the Panther was the best tank of the war
I agree; the panther was an outstanding tank in all aspects except reliability although the ausf. G wasn't nearly as prone to mechanical failure as the ausf. D or it's predecessors.

Although the T-34 was a very good tank in terms of production and repair (easy to mass-produce and replace spare-parts), it lacked in other aspects such as firepower, armour, communication etc. While it's armour was sloped it wasn't nearly thick enough to stop the extremely effective german weaponry.The loader also had to stand on the ammunition since it was very cramped inside the T-34. It's gun was certainly not bad but was outdated fairly soon, even with the upgrade the T-34 couldn't match the firepower of the panther since the panther fired it's shells at a higher velocity.

And although both the pershing and the IS-3 were superior to the T-34 it isn't a honest comparison since the T-34 is a medium tank and both the pershing and the IS-3 are heavy tanks.

I'd say that the T-34 was the best medium tank of the first half of WWII whereas the panther was the best medium tank of the second half.

[RICKRAIDER]

I agree; the panther was an outstanding tank in all aspects except reliability although the ausf. G wasn't nearly as prone to mechanical failure as the ausf. D or it's predecessors.

Although the T-34 was a very good tank in terms of production and repair (easy to mass-produce and replace spare-parts), it lacked in other aspects such as firepower, armour, communication etc. While it's armour was sloped it wasn't nearly thick enough to stop the extremely effective german weaponry.The loader also had to stand on the ammunition since it was very cramped inside the T-34. It's gun was certainly not bad but was outdated fairly soon, even with the upgrade the T-34 couldn't match the firepower of the panther since the panther fired it's shells at a higher velocity.

And although both the pershing and the IS-3 were superior to the T-34 it isn't a honest comparison since the T-34 is a medium tank and both the pershing and the IS-3 are heavy tanks.

I'd say that the T-34 was the best medium tank of the first half of WWII whereas the panther was the best medium tank of the second half.

Very well said. But if we had a competition for the the most-fearsome looking tank, I'd root for the King Tiger.:)

[Dracaveli]

wasn't a soviet heavy tank nicknamed "Stalin", i know the rocket artillery were called stalin's organ, but i remember catching the tail end of a program on PBS that showed a heavy soviet tank used in the battle of berlin which it said red army Soldiers nicknamed the "Stalin"

[IgmaanDigneet]

You probably mean the IS series although those tanks weren't nicknamed; they were actually called Ioseph Stalin (as in their official designation).


IS-2:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/djenin/300px-IS-2-44.jpg

IS-3:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/djenin/is-3.jpg

stalin's organ
You mean the Katyusha? Although it was indeed called Stalin's organ it got it's name from something entirely different;

Katyusha or "Катюша" acquired it's name from a Russian warsong.
The song is about a girl longing for her beloved who is away from her while serving in the military. Katyusha is a tender Russian diminutive of a female name: Ekaterina (Katherine)→Katya→Katyusha.
Katyusha

[KrasnyOktyabr]

The IS series of tanks is derived from the KV series, just wanted to add that. The KV's were very good tanks, just a bit heavy, and undergunned for such a large tank. But they were extremely reliable, and well armoured, which is why they made a sutable base for the IS series.

Good tanks are one thing, but good training and tactics are a whole other.

[werty12]

You want to know my favorite thing about nazis? Blowing them all to pieces on Call of Duty 2. God, I hate racists and bigots, and stupid rednecks who use Hitler to justify thier ignorance.


call of duty 3 is better;) watching germans go splat

[ninjadog6]

Wow, you have no place in this forum werty. Stop necromancing and stop posting.

[darkelf2x1]

Well, one of the last two (Russia committed all sorts of atrocities also, it's just they get glossed over more b/c they were our Allies I guess). Japan did too, but not on the scale of Germany and Russia.
.

but the japanese made a nazi a hero - ( an over statment as there were a lot of red cross workers involved but if i recall correctly the nazi did pull some weight with the japs)

but just to get this out there, not all nazis were bad people. some were for sure though... but that doesnt matter becuase we whipped their kraut assess

... USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

[Statalyzer]

but the japanese made a nazi a hero - ( an over statment as there were a lot of red cross workers involved but if i recall correctly the nazi did pull some weight with the japs)

Not really. Japan and Germany had essentially 0 cooperation during the war. Neither of them ever was able to secure any real assistance from the other besides the automatic tying up of enemy resources.

but just to get this out there, not all nazis were bad people.

True.

[wargrudge]

The Germans did send over a working Me-262 that the Japs wanted to manufacture for themselves but never got around to actually doing it. Thats the most co-operation they had the entire war as far as I know.

[darkelf2x1]

they sent photos and sketches - didnt send over an actual jet engine - last time i checked anyway

the germans were shipping uranium to the japanese

the germans did send the japanese piston engines for their sub carrier aircraft

and they told their own fellow nazis to keep their mouth shut about nanjing

[wargrudge]

Um, yes they did. It was taken on a U-Boat, and was modified to work on a carrier.

[darkelf2x1]

your source?

[wargrudge]

History Channel thing that came on months ago.

[darkelf2x1]

... the history channel is where i got the entire - the japanese jet program was built on sketches and photos -...

but wikipedia states that it was meant to be exported to japan (BMW 003), also states that they instead sent the photos and diagrams

[Statalyzer]

So basically we all agree neither side did **** to actually help the other.

[Lazzars]

So basically we all agree neither side did **** to actually help the other.

how could they have realisticly done anything anyway, the British army controled the suez canal so any U-boats going to japan would have had to travel all the way around the cape of good hope to avoid it

so the only way to have gotten to japan would have been in a submerged U-boat and they couldn't carry much cargo, even the converted ones.

[wargrudge]

There were two very large U-Boats that could take a considerable amount of cargo to Japan, but I forget what they're called. And besides, I'm not sure if they were ever really used or not. :/