Jump to content

World War II Commentaries


Recommended Posts

Well beside the fact that operation Barberosa was a bad idea, You have to reamber that it wasnt hittler who faught in the trenchs, are gave the orders, It was his General's.

Manstein, Gurder, Leeb, The list goes on. These were a large factor in the war, not just Hittler and Himmiler, And the fact that the Soviet Partisins Continuesly dispruted German Suply Lines, Did not help the German's at all.

But the Main thing the allies did to help win the war was this.

BOMB! The British, And american air fleets continuesly hamerd the germans war industry, If germany had been able to produce war weapons as nearly un disturbed as the Soviet Union did behind the cacus moutin ranges, The war would have been drasticly differnt, This was the allies greatest contributions to the war.

The Americans and the british in the Air, And the Soviets on the land.

However If it wasnt for the British in Africa, (and the americans and the french to a lesser extent.)

Rommel and Balibo would have been able to secure the oil welth of Africa, Thus, Afecting the war in a major way.

The Soviets were the main players in the European Conflict, The Americans, British, French, Belgium, Dutch,Norwegions,Danish,Romainains (later in the war that is, since Romaina was actully part of the axis powers in the war till its take over by the soviet union)Hungariuns,Italions(after they fell) and other nations were mearly suport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have good points advocate. I must admit I was wrong about the straight facts on when they entered the war exactly. I do know though that it was not all the russians work that totally pushed the germans back. You see, they used a very detramental stratagy for the people fighting in the front lines. They made a huge line of defense to fight off the germans from entering into russia. They held off for a long time. All that time of defending, they built up masses of planes and tanks and the like. They then made a full attack on the germans with their new manpower and equipment. The germans were weakened because they sent all the good field commanders to places like africa and western germany and france. They had some pretty good generals in russia, but some of their best were not involved in the battles against russia. Without the allies (taking russia out of that for right now) the russians would have been taken down. It doesnt matter that they had a large army. They were poorly trained and were not equiped like the germans were.

empr, stop the trent lott ultra conservitism. It is getting on my nerves.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the countrary, The German Generals in Russia Were brilent, Eqeul to Rommel, Zhovkov, Patton,

They just didnt have the suplies,

The Germans were withen The water tower of Moscow, before the winter slowed them down, and gave the soviets time to rebuild, and resuply themselvs. and drive the Germans Back.

If it wernt for the winter, and the suply difficulties, the germans, may have, just may have, if they did it right, pushed the soviets behind the cacus, but hold them there...thats a differnt story all together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehe, the german generals fighting on the eastern front were not the top picks. There were a few of them that were really good at what they did. The winter is what really did slow down the germans. Like you said, the cold caused major morale problems and the supply lines were very small. If hitler would have been patient and would have given the right time for an attack, he could have eventually taken russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Maybe, Just maybe, My boys will hold them. And maybe I'm a chinease jet piliot" Bruce Campbull

Russia Wouldnt have fallen, Persa, They still would have faught on till the last man, They would have not ussed a surenender, untill the last Soviet had died.

They would have fled into Siberia, Behind the cacucas, whare the german bombers were never able to reach them, and strike,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of them had hearts. Beleive it or not...

ManStein, If i reamber corecty still belived in the nobility of war. And strongly discouraged piliage and rape by his solders.

Somehow, I don't think so... And even if he did, his superiors thought otherwise... You know, throwing millions of Jews into death camps and all... ::)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MeinStein Was the General In command of army group north.

I dont think that he somehow managed to throw millions of jews in camps wile Takint Riga, And seiging Leningrad...

and not to mention he could barealy get suplies, how could he ship jews to the mid poland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheer Numbers.

Stailin Once joked while atending a war meeting with Churchhill and Rosevelt.

"if the germans place a mine field my men charge through as if it were never there."

and the fact that the russians moved there entire war machine to behind the cacus moutins, so that the german bombers couldnt bomb them.

Russia stil wold have won, or perhaps sighed a treaty, that however is doubtfull. it would have been very hard for the germans to have won the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol no they werent ex. The russians had decent armor at best. Compared to the german panthers and tigers, russia's tanks were nothing. Same with the planes. The fw 190s and bf 109s were far far superior than the russian "yak".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol no they werent ex. The russians had decent armor at best. Compared to the german panthers and tigers, russia's tanks were nothing. Same with the planes. The fw 190s and bf 109s were far far superior than the russian "yak".

You are wrong, TMA, Russian tanks were a strong point. They were quite evenly matched. German planes of course were better and more numerous (about 5,000 russian planes were destroyed on the ground by nazis before Stalin gave the word to attack).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviet tanks were inferior to the German ones. Some tanks, like the IS-3 (IS means Iosef Stalin, btw) and SU-85 could compete with the German tanks, but these were only developed when the tide had already turned for the Soviets.

Not that the Soviet tanks were that bad though. The American stuff wasn't the greatest around either. The Sherman tank was a farce compared to the German tanks.

Americas part in Europe wasn't as large as that of the Russians. The second front, starting with D-day, was only realised when it became obvious that the Soviets were going to win, and England and the US wanted to save as much territory as possible.

Germany lost because of a number of reasons, but the most important one is that Hitler made more mistakes then he could afford.

Btw, anybody ever wondered what would have happened if Germany didn't attack Belgium and France first, but instead began with Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviet tanks were inferior to the German ones. Some tanks, like the IS-3 (IS means Iosef Stalin, btw) and SU-85 could compete with the German tanks, but these were only developed when the tide had already turned for the Soviets.

Not that the Soviet tanks were that bad though. The American stuff wasn't the greatest around either. The Sherman tank was a farce compared to the German tanks.

Americas part in Europe wasn't as large as that of the Russians. The second front, starting with D-day, was only realised when it became obvious that the Soviets were going to win, and England and the US wanted to save as much territory as possible.

Germany lost because of a number of reasons, but the most important one is that Hitler made more mistakes then he could afford.

Btw, anybody ever wondered what would have happened if Germany didn't attack Belgium and France first, but instead began with Russia?

SU-85 was an assault cannon like Elefant or Jagdpanther, not a tank. It was less maneuverable and used only to repell enemy waves. IS-2 was one of the most powerful tanks in our history. Most of them were armed with naval 122 mm cannon, which destroyed Panther with one shot. Even if it missed, explosion from five meters was enough to destroy its tower ;) Even later M48 Patton used by Israel had problems with destroying IS-2s in late 1960s! Not saying about T-34, especially version 72 and 85. These were used until 1981. T-34 hasn't best cannon as Tiger, but it was faster and more maneuverable. Armor plating was more thin, but very sophistically placed (one flaw was on front of tower). And T-34 quickly became a standard tank, not just unit for elite SS battalions as Tiger or Panther.

Also it is true that one Tiger was comparable to five Shermans. Panthers little less, Pzkpfw IV was comparable. US losses to them were enormous, but they won because of Wehrmacht's fuel shortage. That also helped Russians, same with large supply with munition and rifles from USA. But tanks were Russian's best things. Possibly that was why US forces have stopped in Pilsen instead of cleaning the world from communism...

Germans attacked Russia with bigger army than in France. They would do it before, if they'll be ensured of english allegiance, as written in Mein Kampf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...