Octane, flammability, and tanks

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I never understand why Germany turned against it's ally: Soviets. After all, they both started the war attacking Poland.

There is an evidence they had to, Stalin was planning to attack Germany.

According to the below info that sounds credible (but could still be neonazi propaganda), Stalin worked hard to get the whole WW2 started, so he could intervene later and conquest the whole Europe and turn it communist. He was quite surprised by Germans, but still managed to get his goal partially filled and got communism in half of Europe.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html


Stalin knew that war with Germany was likely at some point in the future, but he was thinking a few years down the road, not 1941.

Churchill really wanted them involved before the fall of France, well because two fronts are better than one. However Stalin foolishly threw this chance away because he thought he could appease Hitler for a few more years and rebuild the Red Army. This was proven not to be the case in 1941 and than the Russians were screaming for a second front.

The Japanese tried it with the Russians a few years before the Germans and had very limited success. As was said above they didn't really have a modern army by European standards and lacked proper field guns and tanks. So they couldn't even really slug it out with a pre war Russian army.

 

[Spazdog]

I was to understand that the primary problem with the Kriegsmarine only having one (unfinished) aircraft carrier was Hermann Goering.

He did not want to share the Luftwaffe's aircraft resources with the Navy.

Similarly, the Imperial Japanese did not want to use their heavy steel for tanks when they could build more Navy vessels with it.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
However Stalin foolishly threw this chance away because he thought he could appease Hitler for a few more years and rebuild the Red Army. This was proven not to be the case in 1941 and than the Russians were screaming for a second front.


Funny that you mentioned rebuilding Red Army. Ya, it had to be rebuilt after Stalin murdered most of his officers just before the war.

Hitler was evil and psycho, but IMHO, Stalin was even a greater evil. Smart and capable psychopath with unlimited power.

A huge chunk of the 20,000,000+ USSR casualties can be directly or indirectly attributed to Stalin.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

The longest is a Navy, building a proper Navy takes a generation. Or in Germany's case they wanted 7 years of flat out construction to be able to have at least a reasonable chance of going toe to toe with the British fleet.

Navy's are hard to build.



And yet America's Navy has more Admirals than ships.

 

[javacontour]

No aircraft carriers, but for a while, they held the advantage with u-boats.

Interesting game of back and forth as part of the war of black boxes as each side developed measures, counter-measures and counter-counter-measures.

Ultimately, Germany could not build u-boats as fast as the Allies sunk them, while we could build Liberty Ships in days from laying the keel to launching.



Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
So, Nazi Germany had the key elements of land and air battle. But what of the Kriegsmarine? Can anyone name two Nazi aircraft carriers from WWII?

On the other hand, the Imperial Japanese had an outstanding Navy. They were arguably the first fleet to understand the importance of aircraft carriers and while they weren't the first to start building a purpose built flat topped carrier, their's was the first to be underway at sea.
That's why I'm confused as to why they would attack Pearl Harbor when the US carriers were at sea.
Most people acknowledge that the A6M Zero was the finest air-cooled fighter in any theatre at the onset of the war. Certainly the best carrier based fighter.
But what of the Japanese heavy armor? Many know of Shermans, Cromwells, Panzers, Tigers, and T34s but who knows a Japanese tank? Jungle island based warfare would not be suitable for heavy armor but what about China and Korea?

So the Germans had land and air, the Japanese had the sea and air. If they had shared their strengths better....

who knows? They may have been able to attack North America.


The German fleet didn't have time to rebuild, they repeatedly told Hitler that they would not be able to mount any serious operations before 1944.

The Germans had a fantastic air force because you can build those the fastest. Even today any country with the resources can buy and build an air force in a few years that's on par with anyone's.


Army's take a bit longer, divisions really need a few years to properly season.

The longest is a Navy, building a proper Navy takes a generation. Or in Germany's case they wanted 7 years of flat out construction to be able to have at least a reasonable chance of going toe to toe with the British fleet.

Navy's are hard to build.

 

[javacontour]

One other reason I don't think Germany concentrated on a Navy. I think his sights all along were on Russia. I think Hilter thought Britain would not intervene and he would take Poland, France, etc.

I really think Hitler believed his own propaganda and thought the Brits and the Americans were more like him than Eastern Europe and would go along with him.

 

[javacontour]

I think the Merkava (spelling?) is the largest component of their tank force, followed by some M60 variants.

I do reserve the right to be wrong

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Might want to note that the Israelis primarily field our armor.

One of the things they actually developed for us was active explosive armor.

And we did basically win WW2 by out-producing the bad guys.

 

[javacontour]

For island hopping, the tanks were of limited use. They essentially became quasi-mobile pillboxes on most islands, not to mention having a greater logistical tail than an infantryman.

Probably a good decision for them.

Now if they were going to take large land masses, or if they wanted to defend the home islands, then tanks make more sense.

But you have to think the Japanese military was geared towards getting a quick victory and hoping your enemy doesn't have the will to take back what they lost.

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I was to understand that the primary problem with the Kriegsmarine only having one (unfinished) aircraft carrier was Hermann Goering.

He did not want to share the Luftwaffe's aircraft resources with the Navy.

Similarly, the Imperial Japanese did not want to use their heavy steel for tanks when they could build more Navy vessels with it.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
For island hopping, the tanks were of limited use. They essentially became quasi-mobile pillboxes on most islands, not to mention having a greater logistical tail than an infantryman.

Probably a good decision for them.

Now if they were going to take large land masses, or if they wanted to defend the home islands, then tanks make more sense.

But you have to think the Japanese military was geared towards getting a quick victory and hoping your enemy doesn't have the will to take back what they lost.

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I was to understand that the primary problem with the Kriegsmarine only having one (unfinished) aircraft carrier was Hermann Goering.

He did not want to share the Luftwaffe's aircraft resources with the Navy.

Similarly, the Imperial Japanese did not want to use their heavy steel for tanks when they could build more Navy vessels with it.


They did go through China and Korea. Their war machine needed natural resources and Shinto-ism would have prevented them from defiling Japan. They took virtually all the trees and resources from Korea and all the ones from China they could grab.

 

[friendly_jacek]

This is a bit off topic, but I saw this cool poster:

Actually, this is on topic as Finns had few antitank weapons and used Molotov cocktails extensively. The early Soviet tanks were fueled by gas and caught fire quickly.

 

[javacontour]

Very good point. I hadn't considered that aspect of the Japanese conquest in my reply.

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: javacontour
For island hopping, the tanks were of limited use. They essentially became quasi-mobile pillboxes on most islands, not to mention having a greater logistical tail than an infantryman.

Probably a good decision for them.

Now if they were going to take large land masses, or if they wanted to defend the home islands, then tanks make more sense.

But you have to think the Japanese military was geared towards getting a quick victory and hoping your enemy doesn't have the will to take back what they lost.

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I was to understand that the primary problem with the Kriegsmarine only having one (unfinished) aircraft carrier was Hermann Goering.

He did not want to share the Luftwaffe's aircraft resources with the Navy.

Similarly, the Imperial Japanese did not want to use their heavy steel for tanks when they could build more Navy vessels with it.


They did go through China and Korea. Their war machine needed natural resources and Shinto-ism would have prevented them from defiling Japan. They took virtually all the trees and resources from Korea and all the ones from China they could grab.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
This is a bit off topic, but I saw this cool poster:

Actually, this is on topic as Finns had few antitank weapons and used Molotov cocktails extensively. The early Soviet tanks were fueled by gas and caught fire quickly.

The battle of Kiev (1941) was a massive loss for the Soviets as well.

Quote:
The Battle of Kiev was the German name for the operation that resulted in a very large encirclement of Soviet troops in the vicinity of Kiev during World War II. It is considered the largest encirclement of troops in history. The operation ran from 23 August – 26 September 1941 as part of Operation Barbarossa.[2] In Soviet military history it is referred to as the Kiev Defensive Operation, with somewhat different dating of 7 July – 26 September 1941.
Nearly the entire Southwestern Front of the Red Army was encircled with the Germans claiming 665,000 captured. However, the Kiev encirclement was not complete, and small groups of Red Army troops managed to escape the cauldron days after the German pincers met east of the city, including head quarters of Marshall Semyon Budyonny, Marshall Semen Timoshenko and Commissar Nikita Khrushchev. The commander of the Southwestern Front—Mikhail Kirponos—was trapped behind enemy lines and killed while trying to break through.[3] The Kiev disaster was an unprecedented defeat for the Red Army, exceeding even the Minsk tragedy of June–July 1941. On 1 September, the Southwestern Front numbered 752–760,000 troops (850,000 including reserves and rear service organs), 3,923 guns & mortars, 114 tanks and 167 combat aircraft.
The encirclement trapped 452,700 soldiers, 2,642 guns & mortars and 64 tanks, of which scarcely 15,000 escaped from the encirclement by 2 October. Overall, the Southwestern Front suffered 700,544 casualties, including 616,304 killed, captured, or missing during the month-long Battle for Kiev. As a result, four Soviet field armies (5th, 37th, 26th, and 21st) consisting of 43 divisions virtually ceased to exist. The 40th Army was badly affected as well. Like the Western Front before it, the Southwestern Front had to be recreated almost from scratch.