If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"David E. Powell" wrote in message s.com... "Ivan Grozny" wrote in message ... "ZZBunker" wrote in message om... "Nicholas Smid" wrote in message ... "Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message t... I always said Stuey would never amount to anything. "Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message ... On 23 Oct 2003 03:20:56 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: What were the numbers of soldiers involved in the two campaigns that you are comparing. i.e: Suprisingly equal, Rostyk. I'm suprised you didn't know that. Post the numbers, then. Rawest numbers for jan 1939 Germany 1,500,000 troops Holland 60,000 Belgium 80,000 France 700,000 Britain 154,000 total 994,000 in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136 To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be able to beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans did have a lower proportion of obsaleat types. The Germans didn't need much of a Navy in WWII, since they were attacking North Africa, the Middle East, France, and Russia, not the US. Where is pathetic loser Stuart Wilkes when you need him? So they weren't attacking the US? German submarines routinely sank US ships in US coastal waters, especially early on. They also routinely sank US merchant marine vessels in international waters. Doenitz pleaded with Hitler for more ships and subs. If Germany didn't need a navy, why was Doenitz asking for them? Yes... Operation Drumbeat, off the US Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, caught the US quite hard early on in 1942. Also, it took time for the US to get the convoy doctrine and patrol aircraft up and running. And to get the lights turned off in the coastal towns at night.... And especially since they were fighting with tanks, rockets, and missles, and the rest of Europe was fighting with horses and cannons. Wrong. Germany used horses throughout the war like all the other continental European countries. The US used motorized vehicles almost exclusively. The V-1 and V-2 had no strategic impact. Right again. People tend to forget that while the Whermacht used motorized forces for blitzkrieg style attacks and front line action, the supply chain of the German Armed forces relied very heavily on horse drawn wagons and such, in terms of supply chain. Especially in the Eastern Front, where trucks bogged down in mud bad, (though carts were also troubled.) Besides, when one is short on diesel fuel and gasoline, finding food for a horse can be easier. Up to the end of the war, the Germans used horses. As for the V-1 and V-2, yes, they were terror weapons. But by the time they came out, German cities were taking far more damage from Allied air raids than their V-weapons could inflict on the Allies. Also, disinformation, antiaircraft guns and bulked up fighter defenses helped protect London against V-1 attacks after a while. One of the Western Allies' greatest contributions to the war was the bombing campaign. And since it was the invasions of Sicily, Normany, and Norway that saved Russia's ass from certain anniolation, you're missing several other armies in the analysis. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk occured before June of 1944, I believe. Also, the Germans had forces tied down by the Allied invasion of Italy. It was the D-Day attack that opened the way in the west, however. Kesselring and the Apennine mountains were quite nasty delaying forces in Italy. Though the allies did tie down German and Axis forces there. Hitler's war on many fronts was a grand mistake. Not to mention the garrison requirements of the countries he had already taken. From France and the Low Countries in the west to Yugoslavia and Greece in the east. This by no means takes anything from the bravery of the Russian people and soldiers that fought, however. From the gates of Moscow to Leningrad to the Reichschanchellery in Berlin, they did a ton of damage, and took a lot, too. Not to mention the footage I have seen of people setting up factories and working hot steel in buildings with no roofs on yet and snow coming down. There aren't words for that kind of bravery. You need to be a little more specific about bravery when you talk about the Russians. Much of their bravery came at the muzzle of an NKVD rifle. The Moscow panic was brutally surpressed by the NKVD. If you didn't work long hard hours in those factories, you could be shot. NKVD units were generally interspersed with regular units. Anyone not showing sufficient enthusiasm for marching into a Nazi machine gun nest would be shot in the back. The end of the war did not bring relief but did bring into being the gulag system of slave labor. Then there is the issue of the Russians that welcomed the Nazis hoping to get rid of the Communists. Ukranians, although not Russians, were often quite happy to see the Germans, especially remembering that Stalin's famine caused about 4 million of them to die. While Chechans were storming the Reichstag, their families back home were being deported to Siberia. Size of armies in the west and the casualties? Well, the French Army alone suffered 1.9 million KIA and prisoners in the campaign in the West, while the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies inflicted ~27,000 KIA on the Germans. Your numbers are correct, but do not tell the whole story. France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps. Had you included only POWs captured prior to cease fire the numbers would be The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at which point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units, especully reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home where they were left as civies. more correct, but would represent argument against your thesis, that Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible. In this case, the Germans faced unprepared unalerted, peacetime-strength Rifle Divisions (~6000 men) far from their assigned battle positions, which is one of the advantages you get when you do a sneak attack. Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due to willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to tell him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the Red army that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk of the Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just insainly chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran change didn't help much ether. You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of nowehere next to the Soviet border. The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German attack". Why don't you address that fact for a change? Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations had been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far better. The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his errors if not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to recognise talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what they were talking about. Drax |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|