[Aliblahba]

(10-10-2012 01:25 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 12:58 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

In a one-on-one contest, perhaps only the USSR would've been realistic for Germany to defeat. Not Britain or the US.

The English Channel is the only thing that saved the Brits from utter destruction as the German's had no way to cross it. U boats aren't much good for invasions...

Saying that, I'm curious how they would beat the US on the opposite side of the Atlantic when they couldn't even cross 22 miles of water.

The Dutch crossed the English channel. Their wooden shoes acted like little boats.

[Roosh]

I had some Chipotle actually (the tacos) with guacomole. It was okay, but way too much raw onion that my stomach didn't like.

[ElJefe]

(10-10-2012 01:10 PM)dk902 Wrote:  

El Jefe, which of Niall Ferguson's books is this in? Civilization? Sounds interesting.

The Pity of War. It was his first big hit. On average, the Brits spent something like 50% more for each German they killed than what the Germans spent on killing Allied troops during WWI.

(10-10-2012 01:25 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

The English Channel is the only thing that saved the Brits from utter destruction as the German's had no way to cross it. U boats aren't much good for invasions...

Saying that, I'm curious how they would beat the US on the opposite side of the Atlantic when they couldn't even cross 22 miles of water.

The English Channel saved the British from Napoleon and the Spanish Armada too. I guess just being English is a good way to save your ass. In return, they save everybody else's!

(10-10-2012 01:25 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

I'm saying who I would think would win a fictional war, I'm not saying I would like Nazi Germany to win and i'm glad they got their ass kicked in the WW2.

ELjefe, while i"m not denying the fact that the US had a massive and stronger navy during the war and build it very fast, i'm doubting they had a sufficient and motivated army before it. The Nazi's did. Like I said, we need to set parameters here or it's no use even talking about it.
Otherwise we can also discuss about who would win between the Golden horde of Djenzis Khan and the army of Napoleon.

Well, Neil... I didn't see that nazis on the moon movie... what was it? Iron Sky?

Yeah... didn't see it, so I guess I have a hard time picturing how your logic works.

No. In all seriousness.

The US had a big Navy since Teddy Roosevelt. It was big by WWI. It was the biggest in the world by the 1920s due to the Washington Naval Conference.

The US instituted peace-time draft in 1940. Defense spending was increased five-fold. America was gearing for war well before Pearl Harbor.

German successes from 1935 to 1941 was mostly due to the complete ineptness of her opponents than to her own brilliance. At almost anytime, the Allies were superior in numbers, equipment and economics (except a small disadvantage in aircraft that was being quickly rectified). They could've smashed Germany with a head on attack, but timidity, appeasement (paging Obama) and political meddling in military matters aided the Wehrmacht and retarded progress.

We don't need parameters as much as we need facts. Glad to oblige!

[Spike]

@ElJefe,
Yes, because conquering or forcing submission of 28 countries around you is just because they are all incompetent. It had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi-Germany being a Military success in the early years while fighting on 3 fronts.
Notice how the line nearly crosses Moscow? The Soviets were nearly beaten at that point.
The Brits were already ready to negotiate a truce in May 1940 after their disastrous campaigns in Norway and at Dunkirk if it wasn't for Churchill.

[attachment=8120]

[Spike]

Anyway, Since this discussion is all USA! USA! USA, some people being childish and I stand alone here i'm withdrawing from it.

From now on I will only talk game/travel since that's why I was interested in this forum in the first place

[Aliblahba]

(10-10-2012 04:03 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

Anyway, Since this discussion is all USA! USA! USA and I stand alone here i'm withdrawing from it.

Yep, another example of the USA kicking the shit out of Europe.

Final score:

America=1
Holland=0

Who's yo daddy?

And the official victory over the Dutch dance.

[Walderschmidt]

(10-10-2012 04:01 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

@ElJefe,
Yes, because conquering or forcing submission of 28 countries around you is just because they are all incompetent. It had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi-Germany being a Military success in the early years while fighting on 3 fronts.
Notice how the line nearly crosses Moscow? The Soviets were nearly beaten at that point.
The Brits were already ready to negotiate a truce in May 1940 after their disastrous campaigns in Norway and at Dunkirk if it wasn't for Churchill.

Not to mention that Hitler gave a halt order to his panzers at dunkirk which allowed to remnants of the BEF to escape in England.

Despite that, the Wehrmacht captured tonnes of materials:

An excerpt from wikipedia:

"The loss of materiel on the beaches was huge. The British Army left enough equipment behind to equip about eight to ten divisions. Left behind in France were, among huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tanks guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles and 45,000 motor cars and lorries. Army equipment available at home was only just sufficient to equip two divisions. The British Army needed months to re-supply properly and some planned introductions of new equipment were halted while industrial resources concentrated on making good the losses. Officers told troops falling back from Dunkirk to burn or otherwise disable their trucks (so as not to let them benefit the advancing German forces). The shortage of army vehicles after Dunkirk was so severe that the Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) was reduced to retrieving and refurbishing numbers of obsolete bus and coach models from British scrapyards to press them into use as troop transports. Some of these antique workhorses were still in use as late as the North African campaign of 1942."

Wald

[WanderingSoul]

This thread makes me love America even more.

[Hotwheels]

(10-10-2012 05:44 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

This thread makes me love America even more.

The Europeans made us into the Superpower they now despise with their war. The nips only had a small part in that. note-We whipped their ass too while fighting a two front war. Something no one else has done.

I find their thoughts of us now amusing.

I do not find amusing the efforts of the left to make us friends with fucking everyone. I don't give two fucks about everyone else. My standard of living is what I am concerned about.

[Hotwheels]

(10-10-2012 07:10 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

Good points Vicious.

I think in fact this has been a key-factor in Anglo-Saxon victories throughout history.

Niall Ferguson has a very interesting chapter on the killing efficiency of the warring nations in WWI. Germany was far more effective. But US and British manpower and finances, among other things, overpowered them.

Adam Tooze's book (Wages of Destruction) also describes the poor state of the German war economy during WWII. The Germans were simply not that good at bringing their economic power to bear.

If one wanted to sum it up, Germans had a good mastery of tactics, but had an inadequate strategy.

Germany's strategy wasn't bad until Hitler himself started waffling. He is the reason Britain escaped at Dunkirk and he is the reason a full on assault on Moscow was delayed by 2 to 3 months.

There is no doubt that the Wehrmacht is one of, if not the, best armies ever put on the field. The training, tactics, and machines nearly overwhelmed a much more numerous enemy. They just bit off more than they could chew going against Britain ( really a minor player after about 1940), Russia and the USA.

btw-It should be noted that until the Tiger and Panther were introduced the German tanks were generally inferior to their opposition. Especially the T34. And yet the Germans still nearly took Russia. And did obliterate France.( There were never that great of numbers of these tanks on the field as they could not be produced quickly. Mark IV's were always the most numerous tanks for the Germans. A tanks inferior to a Chuchill in firepower.)

That says something as those tanks never hit the battlefield until late 1943. Well after the incredible advances into Russia and overrunning France/Poland/etc....

An American saying the Krauts put the most effective army into the field? Ever?

Yes, I am. But the US still won in the end. A country the size of Ohio has some disadvantages against us. Especially when the 8th air force is bombing the living fuck out of them and Patton is running the same tactics and shoving an armored spear up their ass.

Supplying the Reds simply saved us a whole lot of casualties as they are the ones the wore down the German Army. With supplies from the US.

And yes, I agree with Patton's thoughts at the end of the war. Keep going east. We had the manpower and equipment to prevent there ever being a Cold War. Understandably though, the people at home just wanted the war over.

[ElJefe]

(10-10-2012 04:01 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

@ElJefe,
Yes, because conquering or forcing submission of 28 countries around you is just because they are all incompetent. It had absolutely nothing to do with Nazi-Germany being a Military success in the early years while fighting on 3 fronts.
Notice how the line nearly crosses Moscow? The Soviets were nearly beaten at that point.
The Brits were already ready to negotiate a truce in May 1940 after their disastrous campaigns in Norway and at Dunkirk if it wasn't for Churchill.

(10-10-2012 05:35 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

Not to mention that Hitler gave a halt order to his panzers at dunkirk which allowed to remnants of the BEF to escape in England.

Despite that, the Wehrmacht captured tonnes of materials:

I only count 11 countries. And how does it change anything I said about Allied incompetency being the key to that success?

(10-11-2012 02:43 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

The Europeans made us into the Superpower they now despise with their war. The nips only had a small part in that. note-We whipped their ass too while fighting a two front war. Something no one else has done.

I find their thoughts of us now amusing.

I do not find amusing the efforts of the left to make us friends with fucking everyone. I don't give two fucks about everyone else. My standard of living is what I am concerned about.

America made itself into a superpower. It's just economics.

(10-11-2012 03:15 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Germany's strategy wasn't bad until Hitler himself started waffling. He is the reason Britain escaped at Dunkirk and he is the reason a full on assault on Moscow was delayed by 2 to 3 months.

There is no doubt that the Wehrmacht is one of, if not the, best armies ever put on the field. The training, tactics, and machines nearly overwhelmed a much more numerous enemy. They just bit off more than they could chew going against Britain ( really a minor player after about 1940), Russia and the USA.

btw-It should be noted that until the Tiger and Panther were introduced the German tanks were generally inferior to their opposition. Especially the T34. And yet the Germans still nearly took Russia. And did obliterate France.( There were never that great of numbers of these tanks on the field as they could not be produced quickly. Mark IV's were always the most numerous tanks for the Germans. A tanks inferior to a Chuchill in firepower.)

That says something as those tanks never hit the battlefield until late 1943. Well after the incredible advances into Russia and overrunning France/Poland/etc....

An American saying the Krauts put the most effective army into the field? Ever?

Yes, I am. But the US still won in the end. A country the size of Ohio has some disadvantages against us. Especially when the 8th air force is bombing the living fuck out of them and Patton is running the same tactics and shoving an armored spear up their ass.

Supplying the Reds simply saved us a whole lot of casualties as they are the ones the wore down the German Army. With supplies from the US.

And yes, I agree with Patton's thoughts at the end of the war. Keep going east. We had the manpower and equipment to prevent there ever being a Cold War. Understandably though, the people at home just wanted the war over.

I agree the Wehrmact was an excellent force. The Luftwaffe was comparatively even better for its missions.

But I disagree Allied forces were sub-par. They were not. They simply had poor leadership. The Fall of France was totally unexpected. During the Polish campaign, the French had nearly 100 divisions facing 23 weak German divisions. They could easily have smashed into Germany and won.

Barbarossa was totally dependent on Soviet incompetencies. There were many things they could've done better.

Germany started WWII rather weak except in air-power. In relative terms, far weaker than WWI. Their success would not have been possible without the many mistakes the Allies made.

[Hotwheels]

That is what is amazing about what the Wehrmacht accomplished. They were never an overwhelming force in numbers. The French far outnumbered them even without the Brits. The Russians had a huge numerical superiority.

The won through tactics, training and leadership. And when the leadership faltered ie; when Hitler intervened, they finally lost.

Edit-While the Luftwaffe was good at what they did, they had weaknesses and poor leadership at the top.

I'll say something else that will probably get a few people bent, but I wholeheartedly believe this; The German soldier was a better soldier than any Allied soldier on the same field. I don't like to say that, but the numbers prove that fact. No one hit harder for their weight on the field than the Germans. Just look at the casualties the Reds took in Berlin for instance. When they had an incredibly overwhelming force.

I won't say every as I'm not going to look it up, but as I recall in victory the Russians had higher losses than the Wehrmacht. They could simply absorb them better than the Germans.

While I really enjoy this discussion, it's probably not really a topic that's meant for this forum.

I haven't been there in quite some time, but a good forum for this is armchairgeneral.com. I haven't been there in quite some time but this debate has wet my appetite for some more reading and research.

The fact there are some out there that know more than "common knowledge" and are not 80 years old is music to my ears.

btw-Have you read Stalingrad? Unfortunately, while there are hundreds of books on D day and the western front, stuff on the Eastern side is much harder to find.

[ElJefe]

Actually, the military leadership was against war. It was due to Hitler's intervention that they pressed ahead nonetheless. Arguable he was the cause for early German successes. Note: I am basically just reiterating Tooze's premise.

I've read parts of Stalingrad (Beevor, right?). I have mostly ever been interested in those events at historical tipping points. I have been more interested in Barbarossa and the Fall of France.

[Hotwheels]

No dispute that the generals were not the ones wanting to go to war. What I was getting at is once they were at war, Hitler puckered up a few times and held his armies back against the advise and wishes of his commanders. Dunkirk being the most egregious example.

I'll have to pick up some of Tooze's books. And yes, the Stalingrad I mentioned is Beevor's book. He and Hastings seem to put out some pretty balanced works, devoid of nationalist leanings. That's the reason I avoid Ambrose as he was more worried about putting people on a pedestal than getting to the facts of the matter.

Saying that, Panzer Leader was ok as long as you know your European/Russian geography well and can filter out some nationalism. For the most part it's pretty good but of course being a biography Guderian isn't going to say much bad about himself.

Currently reading Retribution which is Hasting's book on the Pacific war. Just got rolling on it so we'll see how he does on the Far East.