8Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteNow that I think more about it, I think he shouldve just built up his strangh and then attempted operation sealion. That probably wouldve helped, along as going for some of the middle eastern oil fields.
Yes Germany could have won
No they were destined to lose
Hitler didn't have a choice. He came to power through public support, or at least public tolerance. As long as he was winning, he was safe but he needed to keep winning.Originally Posted by 2DREZQ
I can say the way he went about fighting the war was idiotic. The Germans alone could not have beaten the USSR. They needed the Georgians and the Ukranians to which he pissed away that support with attrocities.
Chimo
Now that I think more about it, I think he shouldve just built up his strangh and then attempted operation sealion. That probably wouldve helped, along as going for some of the middle eastern oil fields.
~The only time evil men succed is if good men do nothing
'I made an airplane out of stone. I always did like stayin home'-Shel Silverstein, Falling Up
Why are you here?! Because of you my country is in ruins! -Man, Bejing, Famous picure of him standing in front of a line of tanks.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY!
Seriously, not without a disaster such as Dieppe. The Germans were no better at thinking Cross Channel ops than the Brits. It took Dieppe to force the Brits (and Canadians) to rethink everything. Sea Lion was a disaster waiting to happen without a substantial rethink on the part of the Germans.
Chimo
There were several reasons for Germany's defeat-
1. They did not change thier U-boat tactics.
2. They were not investing in right technologies. Their efforts in developing heavier tanks and guns were putting a lot of stress on their resources.
3. There was shortage of raw materials and fuel.
4. Stalingrad proved to be a tough target.
Jhingalala-Jhingalala, Hurr-Hurr!!! :eek:
Zulu I'm not sure what you mean when you mention the U boat tactics as a reason for defeat.
As for heavier tanks might I remind you that without such machines as the Tiger, Jagpanther and Panther that Germany would not have held out till when it did. The Russian T 34 had the Panzer 4 outgunned (till the long barreled version was brought out in 1943) so heavier tanks were needed.
Stalingrad now theres a chestnut. Would it help all to know that while it was a ridiculous blunder by Hitler to even bother with the city in the first place general Paulus could have taken the city (allthough wether or not he would have held it is a different question). Not in the city fighting no but before it. Before the actual battle had begun in the city the 6th army trapped the Russian forces outside the city in a pincer. 1 quick move and the pincer would be closed thus destroying the Russian army that would later slow them down and destroy them. But Paulus halted at this crucial moment for 1 day and allowed his enemy to escape. Not just that but Hitler didnt have to let 6th army be destroyed but in his ridiculous madness he refused to allow them pull out before it was to late and foolishly Paulus obeyed.Stalingrad a sad story for all concerned.
they have us surrounded, the poor bastards.
I meant that German U-boats could not counter the "convoy" system of the allies, effectively. They could not stop the supplies reaching England.
Germany should have invested in simple, robust and cheap machines instead of producing technological marvels. Soviets did that and T-34 is a good example.
Jhingalala-Jhingalala, Hurr-Hurr!!! :eek:
now I get what you meant.
AS for tanks lest we forget the T34 stood little or no chance against a Tiger and I wouldnt call the long barreled Panzer 4 a tech marvel (it was relatively cheap and easy to make). Things like the King Tiger while exceptionally dangerous probably should not have been bothered with.
Germanies best tanks were the Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger and Panzer 4 (long barrelled). If they produced these alone they would have been on the right track.
they have us surrounded, the poor bastards.
Perhaps but I think if Germany had taken Moscow it might have caused them to capitulate. Remember Moscow was the symbol of communism (the capital of the reds). to take Moscow would have been a serious blow to Stalins idea of the invincibility of communism (allthough this may have had no effect on war itself). however as you said earlier if Hitler had not pissed off the Ukrainians etc they would have fought for him (they didnt like communism or Stalin but when the attrocitie began they liked Hitler less).originally posted by Ooe:<i> Moscow might have been lost but not the war (Napolean did take Moscow to no avail).</i>
they have us surrounded, the poor bastards.
to this thread......apologies.
Couple of points first;
1) Japan/USSR war was in 1938/39, not in 1942 as previously posted - but yes the ***'s got whipped. This is the reason why those divisions were in Siberia in the first place - keeping the peace.
2) Stalingrad happened in late 1942. Only 18 months into their war against Germany. I think it's more a Russian victory than a US industrial one....... Interestingly enough (I hope!) The armies that Stalin used (circa 1M men....) 'did not exist' according to all the Intel for both sides, 1 German Intel guy thought it did but no one believed him, plus Stalin did not tell his Allies either (had the begging bowl out for more supplies and 2nd front - reminds me of some 'beggars' in the UK who are reputed to 'earn' 1k/week)).
Germany win the war? Yes is the Russians had capitulated in 1942 giving Hitler his living space. But Hitler did not want that in 1942 - was doing so well etc....
Clay Blair - author of 'U-Boat Wars' states that the Russian convoys were a waste of time and effort for the goods delivered. But judging from the stat's posted earlier (thank you for those) I guess that he is wrong. I know that some went through Iran, but not that much!! (Blair's book is a bugbear of mine sorry).
UK - manpower wise the Empire contributed a large number, but not enough quantity (potentilly yes, but India is the biggest source and the maximum politically usable were called up).
UK - finances, we were bankrupt in 1940 and only the financial support of the US kept us in the war on that front. Without that support the UK could not sustain it's war effort. Hitler would not need to invade. I don't like it but that is the way it was.
Cheers
Phil
Last edited by philipjd; 26 Oct 04, at 00:36.
Blitzkrieg tactics cannot work in vast areas unless atleast a majority of your infantry is mechanised. The panzer divisions blasting away at the front always have to wait for the slow infantry to follow to give them support, and that loses vital time since the blitzkrieg warfare means that you must take the enemy down before he could recover. The Soviets did just so because the german panzers were dragged down by their infantry. The germans could not have won the war anyway because of the unbreakable russian fighting spirit. By 1944 a person nicknamed dito in Yugoslavia was leading a communist partisan group and virtually freed the country from the germans.
now I get what you meant.
AS for tanks lest we forget the T34 stood little or no chance against a Tiger and I wouldnt call the long barreled Panzer 4 a tech marvel (it was relatively cheap and easy to make). Things like the King Tiger while exceptionally dangerous probably should not have been bothered with.
Germanies best tanks were the Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger and Panzer 4 (long barrelled). If they produced these alone they would have been on the right track.
Not totally true. Germans didnt have the man power to operate thousands of tanks at once, while the russians could. Germany did the right think, but went to far (T2...comon, if its as slow as a snail, will it really survive, even with a **** load of armor?)
Also, there is a misconception about the war that most Americans believe...it is the belief that our Shermans were supioror to the German tanks...which is total bull. I would like to point to a vidoe that I saw a while ago on the history Channel (best. channel. ever.!). It was a town in Germany. The cameraman was following a Sherman on foot. As it goes down a straight away, a German tank rounds a corner. The sherman immediatly fires. When the smoke clears (there was rubble nearby which caused it), the Nazi tank was turning its turret to engage the sherman. The cameraman later stated that there was no scrath on the enemy tank, but the picture is to grainy to see this. The sherman then fires two more rounds at the side of the tank to no avail. As the sherman crew bails out, the German tank fires, totally obliterating the sherman. The (stupid) cameraman follows the German tank. It goes through the city, whiping out over 5 Shermans. It finally gets killed when a large amount of Shermans boxed it in. A sherman fires into a store front, which colapses on the turret of the German tank, which imobilizes it. It takes the Shermans many more shots to finally kill it. This is just one example in which it took many shermans to kill one average german tank. This reinforces my above statement. If Germany had focused less on the 'victory' class of rocket, and turned that to airpower and tanks, they wouldve held out longer, mabey even won.
~The only time evil men succed is if good men do nothing
'I made an airplane out of stone. I always did like stayin home'-Shel Silverstein, Falling Up
Why are you here?! Because of you my country is in ruins! -Man, Bejing, Famous picure of him standing in front of a line of tanks.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY!
In any way Germany loses. Hitler strikes the Soviets first to get a head start. It was just a matter of time before the two titans meet. Stalin's plan was to steadily arm and train his troops and build up his forces in 1941 but he didn't get a chance to. If Hitler had given Stalin another year to build up his forces Stalin would be the one to launch operation Barbarossa (wouldn't so much be barbaross but you get the point) and the third Reich would collapse in a few month due to the Soviet economy and sheer man power (the Soviets had 4000 some tanks in total when they entered Berlin). The Soviets just weren't gonna let the Third Reich live. And to all you Amerikansky, the Soviets were the ones that decided the allied victory, not the western allies that waited until 1944 to launch operation overlord (the same time as the Soviet summer offensive).
The Russians relied on Op.:OL to make a diversion of troops.
~The only time evil men succed is if good men do nothing
'I made an airplane out of stone. I always did like stayin home'-Shel Silverstein, Falling Up
Why are you here?! Because of you my country is in ruins! -Man, Bejing, Famous picure of him standing in front of a line of tanks.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRICY!
Well, Hitler wanted to attack earlier and the invasion would have started earlier, if not for the italian allies.
When the italians were unable to conquer the mediterranian areas they were set to take, they called Germany for help.
Thus the Wehrmacht lost valuable time capturing areas which should have been taken by the Italians long ago, when they were actually supposed to be already invading the Russia weeks ago.
If I recall correctly, the invasion lost 6 weeks because of that, six weeks which might would have been enough to capture moscow before the winter
Seems to me that if Hitler had first conquered Britain, THEN attacked the Soviet Union, he might have got on better. Leaving your flank exposed is never a good idea and it drew off resources which could have been used in Russia.
His mistake was not persevering with the air war, the brits estimated they had 3 days effective combat left, after that the Royal Navy would be sitting ducks...
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: