Octane, flammability, and tanks
- Thread starter Stelth
- Start date
- Status
Regardless, the conclusion is that octane had nothing to do with how fast a tank went up. It was all armor, and whether the shell could penetrate and find things to ignite once penetration was achieved.
In the race between armor and shell, the shell will always win.
In the race between armor and shell, the shell will always win.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Try 23.4 million Soviets.
That is actually up for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
Keeping accurate records of fatalities was not exactly I high priority at the time.
The Germans on the other hand kept very accurate records
Try 23.4 million Soviets.
That is actually up for debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
Keeping accurate records of fatalities was not exactly I high priority at the time.
The Germans on the other hand kept very accurate records
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
We learned how to fight but it took awhile. One must remember that the US came into WW2 very late and only had limited land combat in the desert and as big as Normandy and Italy are for us, in the overall scheme of things they never represented more than 25% combined of the forces the Wehrmacht had available to them. With that most of the units in the west were pretty poor as well, the best units were always on the Eastern front. (IE western units were usually made up of fresh recruits, old men, or tired units recovering from the east and pressed into service.) The Russians really fought and won WW2 in Europe.
This is very true, as 20 million Russians died in WWII. Not what we were told as I grew up though...(It was the allies who won the war, no mention of the Russian effort).
However, the US (Eisenhower)wanted to get fully involved right away and take the fight to the Germans. The British wanted to attack the "soft under belly of Europe" through Africa and then Italy. These were basically side shows as compared to the Eastern front
Try 23.4 million Soviets.
The only country that supposedly came close to this was China, though the range given for Chinese fatalities is so broad it is hard to really say just how close (or not) the numbers were.
Considering how few Germans died in comparison, it is rather appalling.
The Germans were very good at what they did. They had the better army plain and simple up until oh 1943 the Soviets couldn't even compete.
This casualty rate was with the field command's hands tied by Hitlers silly no retreat order. If allowed to fight a flexible retreat like they wanted to they would have added millions to that number. Still even with their hands tied they could still operate effectively against the Russians with up to a 7:1 disadvantage.
Part of this is because of the general lack of fire power the Russians had compared to German infantry units, also the vastly superior German command and control structure. But a lot of it was the flexibility given to very junior officers. A typical command would be to say, advance to point A, start at this time. Or if your a tank commander, head to XX road junction, turn west, drive. That's it though, they would leave it up the the local commanders on how best to achieve their missions. Unlike in the Russian army where actions would be planned to a silly level from the top. They were also far more reluctant to replace officers for mistakes than in the US army which had a very bad habit of sacking new officers before they could really learn how to fight.
We use a lot of the German tactics developed by Guderian, Manstein, Rommel etc to this day. How do you think we invaded Iraq? If you showed those invasion plans to any German commander they would have recognized the thinking behind it. The German General staff of this period created modern land warfare, and most modern first world armies teach their tactics and their books are still on most war college reading lists.
Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
We learned how to fight but it took awhile. One must remember that the US came into WW2 very late and only had limited land combat in the desert and as big as Normandy and Italy are for us, in the overall scheme of things they never represented more than 25% combined of the forces the Wehrmacht had available to them. With that most of the units in the west were pretty poor as well, the best units were always on the Eastern front. (IE western units were usually made up of fresh recruits, old men, or tired units recovering from the east and pressed into service.) The Russians really fought and won WW2 in Europe.
This is very true, as 20 million Russians died in WWII. Not what we were told as I grew up though...(It was the allies who won the war, no mention of the Russian effort).
However, the US (Eisenhower)wanted to get fully involved right away and take the fight to the Germans. The British wanted to attack the "soft under belly of Europe" through Africa and then Italy. These were basically side shows as compared to the Eastern front
Try 23.4 million Soviets.
The only country that supposedly came close to this was China, though the range given for Chinese fatalities is so broad it is hard to really say just how close (or not) the numbers were.
Considering how few Germans died in comparison, it is rather appalling.
The Germans were very good at what they did. They had the better army plain and simple up until oh 1943 the Soviets couldn't even compete.
This casualty rate was with the field command's hands tied by Hitlers silly no retreat order. If allowed to fight a flexible retreat like they wanted to they would have added millions to that number. Still even with their hands tied they could still operate effectively against the Russians with up to a 7:1 disadvantage.
Part of this is because of the general lack of fire power the Russians had compared to German infantry units, also the vastly superior German command and control structure. But a lot of it was the flexibility given to very junior officers. A typical command would be to say, advance to point A, start at this time. Or if your a tank commander, head to XX road junction, turn west, drive. That's it though, they would leave it up the the local commanders on how best to achieve their missions. Unlike in the Russian army where actions would be planned to a silly level from the top. They were also far more reluctant to replace officers for mistakes than in the US army which had a very bad habit of sacking new officers before they could really learn how to fight.
We use a lot of the German tactics developed by Guderian, Manstein, Rommel etc to this day. How do you think we invaded Iraq? If you showed those invasion plans to any German commander they would have recognized the thinking behind it. The German General staff of this period created modern land warfare, and most modern first world armies teach their tactics and their books are still on most war college reading lists.
Last edited:
Lots of interesting responses. Hattaresguy, your responses have been particularly informative.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
I agree. We did some strange and often bad things. We treated German Prisoners of War better than we treated Americans born of Japanese descent. Many of the German prisoners petitioned to stay here after the war.
But compared to the Imperial Japanese, we were angels.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
I agree. We did some strange and often bad things. We treated German Prisoners of War better than we treated Americans born of Japanese descent. Many of the German prisoners petitioned to stay here after the war.
But compared to the Imperial Japanese, we were angels.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Lots of interesting responses. Hattaresguy, your responses have been particularly informative.
I would say inflammatory, at least without proof (i.e.: 10:1 rule, implying internment camps = concentration camps, etc.).
Lots of interesting responses. Hattaresguy, your responses have been particularly informative.
I would say inflammatory, at least without proof (i.e.: 10:1 rule, implying internment camps = concentration camps, etc.).
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
We use a lot of the German tactics developed by Guderian, Manstein, Rommel etc to this day. How do you think we invaded Iraq? If you showed those invasion plans to any German commander they would have recognized the thinking behind it. The German General staff of this period created modern land warfare, and most modern first world armies teach their tactics and their books are still on most war college reading lists.
A lot of stuff the US Military uses or does has a German WWII origin.
Kevlar helmet shape
Assault weapon (M-16)
M9 pistol (Walther p-38 copy) and 9mm cartridge
Jet fighter pilot tactics
Blitzkrieg
The M1 Abrams and Bradley Fighting vehicle look similar to the old Panther Tanks
We use a lot of the German tactics developed by Guderian, Manstein, Rommel etc to this day. How do you think we invaded Iraq? If you showed those invasion plans to any German commander they would have recognized the thinking behind it. The German General staff of this period created modern land warfare, and most modern first world armies teach their tactics and their books are still on most war college reading lists.
A lot of stuff the US Military uses or does has a German WWII origin.
Kevlar helmet shape
Assault weapon (M-16)
M9 pistol (Walther p-38 copy) and 9mm cartridge
Jet fighter pilot tactics
Blitzkrieg
The M1 Abrams and Bradley Fighting vehicle look similar to the old Panther Tanks
Many of the points I was going to make have already been made. Modern Air-Land Battle Combined Arms doctrine was born out of what we learned and observed in WWII.
We have largely learned how to apply combined arms combat power, air, land and sea power to achieve military objectives. This is very similar to both German Blitzkrieg tactics and Soviet Combined Arms Armies. (The Soviet Horde for those trained in US Army schools
)
With a few different choices, the outcome on the Eastern Front could have been far different. Hitler concentrated on Stalingrad, when he probably should have taken Moscow and cut off the head.
Not that I wanted Hitler to win. But his micromanagement of the war, going against the recommendations of his generals diluted/diminished his forces and gave the Soviets time to come up to speed.
The T34 was a great tank. I often marvel at Soviet simplicity. Sloped Armor was quite an innovation. It gave a greater effective thickness without adding the weight in steel that thickness required.
Plus they could out produce Germany.
One lesson we seem to have forgotten from that war was that it's often sheer numbers that win the war. While I think the M1 is a great tank, and we have some really great fighter planes, etc. Let us not forget that the complexity of German weapons lead to them being unavailable on the front lines.
The Germans tried to upsize their tanks, making them better in terms of firepower and armor. But I believe they paid the price in availability. They couldn't produce as many, and the ones they did produce were not nearly as reliable.
I believe we've seen the same thing in the various wars against Israel. IIRC, many Israeli victories were due to their ability to get tanks BACK into service after suffering battle damage. Their opponents were not able to do that, and suffered losses as a result.
Simple, durable and repairable have their own quality on the battlefield. Quantity also possesses a certain quality when applied to the modern battlefield.
Discounting the horrors of Nazi political thought, I wonder how the war would have turned out if Hitler actually allowed his Generals to do what they knew best?
We are probably better off that Hitler was not assassinated, as he was one of our greatest allies in ensuring his own defeat.
We have largely learned how to apply combined arms combat power, air, land and sea power to achieve military objectives. This is very similar to both German Blitzkrieg tactics and Soviet Combined Arms Armies. (The Soviet Horde for those trained in US Army schools
With a few different choices, the outcome on the Eastern Front could have been far different. Hitler concentrated on Stalingrad, when he probably should have taken Moscow and cut off the head.
Not that I wanted Hitler to win. But his micromanagement of the war, going against the recommendations of his generals diluted/diminished his forces and gave the Soviets time to come up to speed.
The T34 was a great tank. I often marvel at Soviet simplicity. Sloped Armor was quite an innovation. It gave a greater effective thickness without adding the weight in steel that thickness required.
Plus they could out produce Germany.
One lesson we seem to have forgotten from that war was that it's often sheer numbers that win the war. While I think the M1 is a great tank, and we have some really great fighter planes, etc. Let us not forget that the complexity of German weapons lead to them being unavailable on the front lines.
The Germans tried to upsize their tanks, making them better in terms of firepower and armor. But I believe they paid the price in availability. They couldn't produce as many, and the ones they did produce were not nearly as reliable.
I believe we've seen the same thing in the various wars against Israel. IIRC, many Israeli victories were due to their ability to get tanks BACK into service after suffering battle damage. Their opponents were not able to do that, and suffered losses as a result.
Simple, durable and repairable have their own quality on the battlefield. Quantity also possesses a certain quality when applied to the modern battlefield.
Discounting the horrors of Nazi political thought, I wonder how the war would have turned out if Hitler actually allowed his Generals to do what they knew best?
We are probably better off that Hitler was not assassinated, as he was one of our greatest allies in ensuring his own defeat.
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.
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.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
I agree. We did some strange and often bad things. We treated German Prisoners of War better than we treated Americans born of Japanese descent. Many of the German prisoners petitioned to stay here after the war.
But compared to the Imperial Japanese, we were angels.
Oh yeah we were.
There was actually a pretty well documented "contest" between two Japanese officers over how many Chinese civilians they could kill with their swords. I forget their names but it was widely covered in the Japanese press at the time; quite a sporting event.
OTOH the Japanese were very honorable. In Nanking if I remember correctly a couple German Nazi's saved quite a few people. Since they had an alliance no Japanese solider would touch a German with a Swastika arm band. So as a result they were able to save quite a few Chinese civilians especially women from rape by draping the factory in the Nazi flag.
Go figure.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
They also only teach of the German war crimes, they make no mention of the allies doing pretty much the same thing.
Shooting prisoners, civilians, etc was done by every army. The Russians and French were probably the most eager in this regard.
Much is made of Nazi war crimes. But overall, the Imperial Japanese may have actually been more brutal and criminal. They believed themselves to be racially and genetically superior to the Chinese and Koreans.
it's difficult for me personally to say anything positive about the Soviets, but one could argue that they just brought the horrors of the Eastern Front home to Berlin. Also, the Soviet officers were reportedly killing their own men that did not advance fast enough. If they do not care enough about their own troops, why would they care about taking prisoners or leaving civillians alive? If you know the Tokarev behind you is pointed at your head, maybe you do things your conscience doesn't agree with.
The US and Brits weren't exactly angels. War is [heck]. But if you were a Nazi and you decided to surrender, you wanted to surrender to the Brits and/or Americans.
We were better but in US or British occupied areas we still had the old 10 to 1 rule. IE if one of our troops is killed by a resistance fighter we will execute 10 locals, and we did in some German towns.
My point is that one has to look at this threw many shades of gray.
I agree. We did some strange and often bad things. We treated German Prisoners of War better than we treated Americans born of Japanese descent. Many of the German prisoners petitioned to stay here after the war.
But compared to the Imperial Japanese, we were angels.
Oh yeah we were.
There was actually a pretty well documented "contest" between two Japanese officers over how many Chinese civilians they could kill with their swords. I forget their names but it was widely covered in the Japanese press at the time; quite a sporting event.
OTOH the Japanese were very honorable. In Nanking if I remember correctly a couple German Nazi's saved quite a few people. Since they had an alliance no Japanese solider would touch a German with a Swastika arm band. So as a result they were able to save quite a few Chinese civilians especially women from rape by draping the factory in the Nazi flag.
Go figure.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Lots of interesting responses. Hattaresguy, your responses have been particularly informative.
I would say inflammatory, at least without proof (i.e.: 10:1 rule, implying internment camps = concentration camps, etc.).
Oh how the truth hurts. Go study some real history, first person accounts, German, Russian, Italian, British.
We killed a ton of German prisoners after the war because we simply couldn't handle them, and didn't have a proper prison camp system set up. Many starved or died from exposure.
Shooting civilians and prisoners happened all the time, its well documented. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Lets use a very well documented example here, I'm sure everyone has seen Band of Brothers? While it was quite good, they left a few things off.
Here is an excellent Normandy guide who really knows his stuff. Here is what they didn't show you in the Band of Brothers Hollywood version.
In reality at Bracourt Manor, Spiers beat to death two unarmed surrendering German soldiers with the butt of his Thompson, than shot the French owner of the house when he protested at the Germans treatment.
This was actually very common on all sides, paratroopers didn't take prisoners for logistical reasons.
War is [censored], it doesn't do anyone any favors glossing over what really happened.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Lots of interesting responses. Hattaresguy, your responses have been particularly informative.
I would say inflammatory, at least without proof (i.e.: 10:1 rule, implying internment camps = concentration camps, etc.).
Oh how the truth hurts. Go study some real history, first person accounts, German, Russian, Italian, British.
We killed a ton of German prisoners after the war because we simply couldn't handle them, and didn't have a proper prison camp system set up. Many starved or died from exposure.
Shooting civilians and prisoners happened all the time, its well documented. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Lets use a very well documented example here, I'm sure everyone has seen Band of Brothers? While it was quite good, they left a few things off.
Here is an excellent Normandy guide who really knows his stuff. Here is what they didn't show you in the Band of Brothers Hollywood version.
In reality at Bracourt Manor, Spiers beat to death two unarmed surrendering German soldiers with the butt of his Thompson, than shot the French owner of the house when he protested at the Germans treatment.
This was actually very common on all sides, paratroopers didn't take prisoners for logistical reasons.
War is [censored], it doesn't do anyone any favors glossing over what really happened.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Many of the points I was going to make have already been made. Modern Air-Land Battle Combined Arms doctrine was born out of what we learned and observed in WWII.
We have largely learned how to apply combined arms combat power, air, land and sea power to achieve military objectives. This is very similar to both German Blitzkrieg tactics and Soviet Combined Arms Armies. (The Soviet Horde for those trained in US Army schools
)
With a few different choices, the outcome on the Eastern Front could have been far different. Hitler concentrated on Stalingrad, when he probably should have taken Moscow and cut off the head.
Not that I wanted Hitler to win. But his micromanagement of the war, going against the recommendations of his generals diluted/diminished his forces and gave the Soviets time to come up to speed.
The T34 was a great tank. I often marvel at Soviet simplicity. Sloped Armor was quite an innovation. It gave a greater effective thickness without adding the weight in steel that thickness required.
Plus they could out produce Germany.
One lesson we seem to have forgotten from that war was that it's often sheer numbers that win the war. While I think the M1 is a great tank, and we have some really great fighter planes, etc. Let us not forget that the complexity of German weapons lead to them being unavailable on the front lines.
The Germans tried to upsize their tanks, making them better in terms of firepower and armor. But I believe they paid the price in availability. They couldn't produce as many, and the ones they did produce were not nearly as reliable.
I believe we've seen the same thing in the various wars against Israel. IIRC, many Israeli victories were due to their ability to get tanks BACK into service after suffering battle damage. Their opponents were not able to do that, and suffered losses as a result.
Simple, durable and repairable have their own quality on the battlefield. Quantity also possesses a certain quality when applied to the modern battlefield.
Discounting the horrors of Nazi political thought, I wonder how the war would have turned out if Hitler actually allowed his Generals to do what they knew best?
We are probably better off that Hitler was not assassinated, as he was one of our greatest allies in ensuring his own defeat.
Several German generals did understand this.
Heinz Guderian who was the Inspector of all Panzer troops starting in 1943 pushed hard for increased up gunned Panzer IV production and the halt of all other tank production and assault gun production. He viewed assault guns as silly, and they were.
He understood as most field commanders did at the time, is that they would rather have 3 Panzer 4's which were good enough, and reliable. Instead of 1 Tiger or Panther which were not very good until 1944. Or a King Tiger which was stupid and to heavy.
Hitler is the reason they didn't take Russia. Moscow would have been taken in 1941 if they didn't waste time in Kiev, and Stalingrad could have been taken 3 months sooner if Hitler didn't order them to drive around and waste time in wheat fields. At the time their were no Russian troops in either city, and those months allowed the Russians to dig in, and the winter to settle in.
Notice the diversion of Guderian's armored group away from Bryansk and Tula in dry weather south to Kiev, they had to return north in mud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_%281941%29
What Hitler did not seem top grasp, probably since he never really went to the front, is that at the time most Russian roads were dirt. So when the rain's came in September they turned to almost impassible mud, until they froze. Moving an armored division in such conditions is a super human feat, even tracked vehicles get stuck, and it places tremendous wear on the equipment and men.
If Guderian was allowed to continue his drive to Moscow in 1941 he probably would have been on the better paved roads around Moscow by the time the rains came. So in other words the Russians would have been screwed in their defense of the city.
Another aspect that also really hurt the German advance was the Russian railroad gauge, which was more narrow than the European gauge at the time. It took time behind the front to change the tracks in the right gauge so the supply trains could come up. Trucks are nice but heavy rail is how you keep an army in the field. Its also the best way to move divisions.
Many of the points I was going to make have already been made. Modern Air-Land Battle Combined Arms doctrine was born out of what we learned and observed in WWII.
We have largely learned how to apply combined arms combat power, air, land and sea power to achieve military objectives. This is very similar to both German Blitzkrieg tactics and Soviet Combined Arms Armies. (The Soviet Horde for those trained in US Army schools
With a few different choices, the outcome on the Eastern Front could have been far different. Hitler concentrated on Stalingrad, when he probably should have taken Moscow and cut off the head.
Not that I wanted Hitler to win. But his micromanagement of the war, going against the recommendations of his generals diluted/diminished his forces and gave the Soviets time to come up to speed.
The T34 was a great tank. I often marvel at Soviet simplicity. Sloped Armor was quite an innovation. It gave a greater effective thickness without adding the weight in steel that thickness required.
Plus they could out produce Germany.
One lesson we seem to have forgotten from that war was that it's often sheer numbers that win the war. While I think the M1 is a great tank, and we have some really great fighter planes, etc. Let us not forget that the complexity of German weapons lead to them being unavailable on the front lines.
The Germans tried to upsize their tanks, making them better in terms of firepower and armor. But I believe they paid the price in availability. They couldn't produce as many, and the ones they did produce were not nearly as reliable.
I believe we've seen the same thing in the various wars against Israel. IIRC, many Israeli victories were due to their ability to get tanks BACK into service after suffering battle damage. Their opponents were not able to do that, and suffered losses as a result.
Simple, durable and repairable have their own quality on the battlefield. Quantity also possesses a certain quality when applied to the modern battlefield.
Discounting the horrors of Nazi political thought, I wonder how the war would have turned out if Hitler actually allowed his Generals to do what they knew best?
We are probably better off that Hitler was not assassinated, as he was one of our greatest allies in ensuring his own defeat.
Several German generals did understand this.
Heinz Guderian who was the Inspector of all Panzer troops starting in 1943 pushed hard for increased up gunned Panzer IV production and the halt of all other tank production and assault gun production. He viewed assault guns as silly, and they were.
He understood as most field commanders did at the time, is that they would rather have 3 Panzer 4's which were good enough, and reliable. Instead of 1 Tiger or Panther which were not very good until 1944. Or a King Tiger which was stupid and to heavy.
Hitler is the reason they didn't take Russia. Moscow would have been taken in 1941 if they didn't waste time in Kiev, and Stalingrad could have been taken 3 months sooner if Hitler didn't order them to drive around and waste time in wheat fields. At the time their were no Russian troops in either city, and those months allowed the Russians to dig in, and the winter to settle in.
Notice the diversion of Guderian's armored group away from Bryansk and Tula in dry weather south to Kiev, they had to return north in mud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_%281941%29
What Hitler did not seem top grasp, probably since he never really went to the front, is that at the time most Russian roads were dirt. So when the rain's came in September they turned to almost impassible mud, until they froze. Moving an armored division in such conditions is a super human feat, even tracked vehicles get stuck, and it places tremendous wear on the equipment and men.
If Guderian was allowed to continue his drive to Moscow in 1941 he probably would have been on the better paved roads around Moscow by the time the rains came. So in other words the Russians would have been screwed in their defense of the city.
Another aspect that also really hurt the German advance was the Russian railroad gauge, which was more narrow than the European gauge at the time. It took time behind the front to change the tracks in the right gauge so the supply trains could come up. Trucks are nice but heavy rail is how you keep an army in the field. Its also the best way to move divisions.
Last edited:
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.
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....
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The Germans were very good at what they did. They had the better army plain and simple up until oh 1943 the Soviets couldn't even compete.
Napoleon also had superior army and even took Moscow and burned it to the ground.
Westerners typically underestimate vastness of Russia, extremes of climate, poor local infrastructure, and resourcefulness and toughness of Russian people.
The Germans were very good at what they did. They had the better army plain and simple up until oh 1943 the Soviets couldn't even compete.
Napoleon also had superior army and even took Moscow and burned it to the ground.
Westerners typically underestimate vastness of Russia, extremes of climate, poor local infrastructure, and resourcefulness and toughness of Russian people.
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
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
Of all the WWII movies, I cannot recall any about the 442nd Infantry Regiment.
How did being hearing the cries of, "BANZAI!" and being overrun by Japanese effect the Nazi psychology?
One would not want to report back to his superiors that his position had been lost to Japanese soldiers. You might be judged mentally incompetent and that was a death sentence in Nazi Germany.
Or the 92nd Infantry Division Buffalo Soldiers. I wonder if any of the Nazis thought, "Oh no! Jesse Owens is attacking us."
and little of the ferocity of the British Gurkhas. A British commander once said that if a man said he wasn't afraid of dying, he was either lying or a Gurkha.
the Canadians that landed at Juno Beach didn't really have it any easier than the Americans at Omaha Beach. It wasn't as heavily defended as Omaha but it was heavily defended and the seawall was higher.
In the movie Gallipoli it is demonstrated how the Australians were used as cannon fodder by the Brits. But you seldom see any Australians in WWII movies. (beyond the Australian Bush hat worn by the leader in TV's Rat Patrol)
How did being hearing the cries of, "BANZAI!" and being overrun by Japanese effect the Nazi psychology?
One would not want to report back to his superiors that his position had been lost to Japanese soldiers. You might be judged mentally incompetent and that was a death sentence in Nazi Germany.
Or the 92nd Infantry Division Buffalo Soldiers. I wonder if any of the Nazis thought, "Oh no! Jesse Owens is attacking us."
and little of the ferocity of the British Gurkhas. A British commander once said that if a man said he wasn't afraid of dying, he was either lying or a Gurkha.
the Canadians that landed at Juno Beach didn't really have it any easier than the Americans at Omaha Beach. It wasn't as heavily defended as Omaha but it was heavily defended and the seawall was higher.
In the movie Gallipoli it is demonstrated how the Australians were used as cannon fodder by the Brits. But you seldom see any Australians in WWII movies. (beyond the Australian Bush hat worn by the leader in TV's Rat Patrol)
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.
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....
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked