Who Do You Think?.........

[Count von Phoib 0]

...

 

...

 

...

 

Borat?

 

:huh:

[Xenome 0]

@ bilolo

 

That's quite easy. But it takes a time to get the girls know that you are something special. But that is a complete new threat. ;)

 

@ topic

 

I don't want to sound like a complete Nazi, but somehow I htink Hitler had the chance to win the war. but there were too many stratetic mistakes in some of the warplans. All right. it was important to fight for africa and especially El Alamein but he attack russia to early. What I still don't get is why did he declare war upon russia. It doesn't matter if you are Nationalist or sozialist. At the end of the day these two different points of view are nearly the same to me. Both build on the community. The people of a land pull together at one string. Just the way how they realise it is different.

 

If Hitler would have made an allience with russia instead of Italy, he would have had a big chance. Italy was a completely nonsense alliancemember. The didn't have good units beside the Semovente M43 da 105/25. The rest of the tanks were a complet litter. Far too low armour, bad weapons etc.

 

But Hitler messed it all up with his size illusions of some weapons. I just want to name some of them: Dicke Max, Maus, Panzer IX, Panzer X, etc. If they all would have been developed the stellworks would never had the capacity to produce so much steel for at least one Dicke Max. A Tank with a weight of about 1.000 tonns would just need too much steel and so on, that the whole machinery would break together because of the lack of oil!

[BIGJohnMP 0]

Will this thread ever die?

EDIT: OMFG! I'm helping to keep it alive! I have become what I hate!

*head explodes*

Edited October 24, 2006 by BIGJohnMP

[Xenome 0]

Do fear. How do we say here in German:

 

"Unkraut vergeht nie!"

 

which means translatet

 

"Weed never passes!"

[BIGJohnMP 0]

haha

Pothead...

[pinbag 0]

Bleh. ( postcount +1 :D )

[BIGJohnMP 0]

Yay! I'm a trend setter!

[BoB 0]

Jack the Ripper ant Tim McVeigh were trendsetters. Doesnt mean it's a good thing.

[BIGJohnMP 0]

Bah!

Your just jealous. :P

[Shas'la 0]

Wow I never imaginged my thread would actually go on for so long but to make a couple of points.

 

-History televison is kinda biased in the fact of the records found because people in history have their own biases, because obvisously not all the history can be primary sources, some are secondary sources.

 

-yeah I been kinda wondering that my self about hitler attacking russia but, The original plans for taking over the world (insert manical laugther here) was that it should have started in 1946 when all the U-boats hitler wanted would have been complete.

 

well thats all I have to say and yeah I guess this is probably overused but I haven't been here long.

 

Chee........ *thump*

*backgorund noise* "did you get that pirate?"

[Feuersturm 0]

Germany would have won if they had stopped at France. Their force conecntration / # of land owned would have been exteremly easier to hold. Having the amount of forces disposible to them in the French and German areas would have been enough to stop an allied invasion, and if Hitler showed no further aggression against any other states, the Allies would probably make peace eventually (assuming Hilter beefs up the Airforce and has overwheming air superiority over the land he controlls).

 

Hilter's biggest mistake was over-extending his troops. Its like a ballon, in theory. A barely filled ballon allows for stretching, and is thus harder to pop. Blow iy up too big, and the tiniest poke can blow it up.

 

And if you argue the fact that the allies could have invaded Germany successfully, take a look at how close the allies did come to defeat in the first days with the 'mixed divisions' (French / German / Foriegn army mixes) that the allies faced.

 

Economy wise, Germany was better off before the war. His economical engineers (for a lack of a better word) did the near impossible by running a Free-MArket system in an authoritian state (or Facist if you will). Assuminmg that after taking France the economy begins to resume towars its pre-war state slowly, i think Germany would have become a state that many would have to deal with, and one that the allies would eventually had to accept, like it or not.

[Xenome 0]

There you are right Forestorm. But also a mistake was to take Itlay as an ally. They were no match for the allied forces. The armour of the late war tanks e.g. P40 was just 50 mm! Compared to a Churchill VII (which was build at the same time!) with nearly 80 mm at the same time the P40 was just lost and how shall I say it completely useless with its 75mm gun.

 

The projectiles just fly another direction when they hit the Churchill VII.

 

German should have stopped after taking France. If Hitler would have waited one or two years the army would have regenerated and would probably have more men! So it owuld have been easier for a further approach on any direction. But he wanted to take all in one single battle and not everything piece after piece. All right if you push an enemy into a corner they fight harder (normally) but in fact if the army would have been regenerated with which Hitler should have attacked, the hard fighting rest of soldiers would have been no match.

[Lukas 0]

theres is one famous line that is taken for szu tzu that wound have won germany the war

" avoid what is strong and attack what is weak, that is the art of war"

Edited October 25, 2006 by Lukas

[flyby 0]

Hilter's biggest mistake was over-extending his troops. Its like a ballon, in theory. A barely filled ballon allows for stretching, and is thus harder to pop. Blow iy up too big, and the tiniest poke can blow it up.

Almost correct... :)

In a war you need 2 kind of troops: frontline troops and occupying forces.

 

If you expand your territory, you also increase your frontline. At certain point Germany did not have enough soldiers and equipment to adequately cover this enormous frontline, so they started to thin out their battalions to spread them out.

I've read reports from East fronter’s where they had a foxhole every 100m to stop the enemy that was attacking in numbers 8 to 10 times higher...

It is not hard to puncture such a frontline and raid several hundreds of kilometres into occupied territory.

 

By expanding your territory you also enlarge the surface you need to keep under control. This requires a considerable amount of "second grade" forces to keep the conquered land under your control, further draining away your war resources.

 

Both elements combined with the relentless attack by the Americans on strategic places (production, research, energy) made that Germany was destined to loose the war the moment they started a 2 front war.

[Xenome 0]

That what you just have said flyby is what I wanted to say. If Hitler would have waited after the victory against France, the Wehrmacht could have regenerated and be enlarged with new soldiers. The losses which were taken could have been refilled with new soldiers and so the army would gain strength.

 

But on the other side. What owuld have done the population? Especially the frensh people? If the german forces would have stopped after taking france they would have been able to nearly take completely control of France and to "eliminate" the different resistance groups which made the live of a soldier even harder. With the complete occupation of France and the complete elimination of the resistance the other nations like GB or USA would have seen that the gereman forces would be no match for them if they wanted to attack somwhere at the normandy or elsewhere. only an airraid would have been possible by then. And such airraids would be smashed by the Wehrmacht with no mercy, because the german forces would have been far to strong and far to well regenerated. I do not want to talk about the organisation the german forces would have had by then.

 

As Firestorm has allready said, the Allied forces were nearly smashed by the Germans at the normandy. They were really good organised but the ammount the which the Wehrmacht used was a bit too low for a complete elimination fo the thread at the beaches. And additional the Allied battleships which had covered the beaches were also a problem. An airraid like the Japanese would have made in Pearl harbour would have made a short progress with these ships because the Allied soldiers were not prepared for a real attack from the air. So the planes would have been able to fly above them with only a few victims.

[Feuersturm 0]

Having Italy join the war was not too bad. Had Germany not got them, im pretty sure the allies would have.

 

Anyone who has read 'Hitler and his Generals' (transcripts of actual military conferences held by Hitler from 1942 - 1945) would see that there were some Italian divisions that did act equivlelent to some German Divisions (these were the die-hard Facist divisions of Italy), and were of good use on the eastern front (not as people you send in to the fire). Having Italy whre they are would also give German preparation time should the Allies invade from beneath, as they would obviously have to knock Italy out before progressing north to Germany.

Edited October 26, 2006 by {LD}Firestorm

[Xenome 0]

There you are right. If you see the italian landscape as a stratetic position and another barricade for the allies. That is true.

 

I never knew that there ware some divisions that were equivalent to the germans. The only things I have always red weren't that positiv about the italian divisions.

 

Additional the Italian landscape is land with many hills and several very important stratetic positions. Monte Casino for example. That was just a position which comes first in my mind it I think of Italy. Also the thin middle of Italy is a very well position to defend, because it is not very wide.

[bilolo 0]

@ Perhaps if hitler build an super air force, he could take very places in a few time.

I know, planes needs steel and oil, but, its more agile, mor hard to take down, and have a giant line of sight.

I dont know if my idea works but, economizing steel and oil of the tanks, and using flaks88, maybe this could be an good strategy?

Using planes to sunk ships and destroy enemy tanks, planes, and hit the factories of the enemy!

What U think people?

 

<_<

Edited October 26, 2006 by bilolo

[flyby 0]

The problem is that the allies were not so far behind and even ahead in certain area's(laminar flow wings). But at the same time, the Allies were far superior in their production, on both vehicles and aircraft.

So the point of having a superior air force capable of dealing a deadly blow to your enemy is just not possible. It's wishful thinking...

 

What I do agree upon you is the enormous resource wasted on the German navy. I once calculated that you could have approximately 15000 Panthers build for the cost price of the 11 biggest ships in the German navy.

Of course that doesn't solve the shortage of well trained men to operate those tanks, but it does illustrate the enormous squandering of resources.

 

Same thing applies for the V2 rocket. That program is estimated to have a cost of about 40% of what was needed for the A-bomb program. Its cost effectiveness ratio was extremely poor!! Each V2 was about 90% of the price of a Me109. An excellent way to deplete your resources, I’d say!!

 

Estimates done by professionals (LEMB) required to have at least 3 to 4 times more Me262 fielded to have a noticeable effect on the day bombing campaigns of the Americans. The main reason why the Me262 came so late in the war were the troubles with its JUMO engines: They took far longer to engineer then anticipated.

 

So then we come to my point of view: Germany lost the war in 1942.

1942 was a pivoting year: Germany was still too relaxed about its war production because they considered they won the war and it would be a matter of time before a peace treaty would be signed with England.

But the opposite happened and the Allies started to ramp up their wartime production. In 1942 several capital mistakes were made, more specifically the 1 year moratorium on development of new technologies and aircraft. They could have fielded the He280 jet 10 months earlier then the Me262 and wreck havoc on the early 1943 bomber formations. But the project was side tracked because they felt they wouldn't need any new aircraft type. The old ones had more then enough development room in their eyes.

Another example is the Schmetterlinge AA rocket. Had they not cut the funds in 1942 on the project, the AA rocket system would have been operational mid 1944. as it was very near operational in may 1945.

[bilolo 0]

So, what german could do for win the war?

I dont understand if this was possible!

What is the best thing german shold do?

Tecnology, mass production, what?

[flyby 0]

With the given parameters (2 front war), Germany would have lost the war anyway. It is/was impossible to win. It's like taking on a whole rugby team on your own. You're set to loose from the start....

The allied forces outproduced Germany with almost 12:1 on airplanes and 4:1 in tanks. Even with the hindsight on history and correcting the errors that have been made, Germany would still loose.

 

If you want to win, then do not declare war on the USA en the USSR....

[Lukas 0]

So, what german could do for win the war?

I dont understand if this was possible!

What is the best thing german shold do?

Tecnology, mass production, what?

there best bet? dont go to war with russia B)

[bilolo 0]

Hummmm...

Now I Understand...

Yep...Sometimes We Can't Do Nothing Uh?

EHEHEHhe....

Its Part of The Life....

Well...Maybe This Is The End Of this Topic!

Or Not?

[flyby 0]

So, what german could do for win the war?

I dont understand if this was possible!

What is the best thing german shold do?

Tecnology, mass production, what?

there best bet? dont go to war with russia B)

Actually, had the Germans been able to redirect ALL their forces towards Russia, instead of only 60%, I think it would have been very possible to win from Russia.

It is actually the declaration of war against the USA that killed them in the long run. The strategic bombings by the USAAF did put a heavy strain on their war economy. It was the type of bombings the USSR was not capable of conducting.

 

The Battle of Kursk was only marginally lost by Germany. Had they deployed 1000 tanks more, the battle of Kursk would have been a German victory. Russia won the battle with a mere 2000 tanks remaining, but, because the logistical supplies were much shorter, they were able to re-supply their troops much quicker then the Germans. This advantage only got bigger as time passed by.

 

I say that their most crusial error was to declare war on the USA. America could easily outproduce them, while their infrastructure was beyond the reach of Germany. As the USAAF was based in the UK, the Americans could however continiously bomb the German war industry. They were at a clear strategical disadvantages from the start.

 

Luckily, for the rest of Europe, Nazi Germany did not make it...

[Neo 0]

Interesting analyze Flyby....But even without their declaration of war against the USA, Americans were already involved in the war. And after Pearl Harbour the target was Japan AND the axis forces, German's declaration of war or not.

 

My personal view about Germany most crucial error was to declare war on Russia. Dealing with 2 fronts (Africa and France) would had been easier (but not necessary easy) than it was with 3 fronts.

 

It may seems curious to think about Germany and Russia on the same side against Allies considering the political situation in Europe between the 2 wars. In Germany communism and nazism were fighting each other for power before the nazi party get the majority of the votes.

 

But business is business and the 2 nations had many economic agreements and even military agreements (like the invasion and the sharing of Poland in 1939).

 

Is this "partnership" could had last some more years if there was no Barbarossa? Many experts don't think so but...who knows....

 

Any scenario on wich ww2 would had last longer than it was, could had lead to a much more dramatic ending with US nukes dropped over Europe cities...or German nukes over Great Britain...

Edited November 3, 2006 by Neo