|
|
| Author |
Message |
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
 Posted: 03/14/03 - 00:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
Dude youre going to miss Daddy's story... 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Torgo
Total Newbie
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 29
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 03:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
I think the largest tank battle in WWII was in Kursk 42, not 100% sure though.
As far as German Tanks go, they were superior to American and British tanks in armor and firepower. Mobility was the strongpoint of American and UK armor, also mechanical reliability. (German Tigers and Panthers suffered from numerous mechanical problems)
Russian Tanks however, were pretty much on an even ground with German Armor. The T34 was one of the best tanks of the War, Germany basically copied the T34 and called it the Panther. Not to mention the JS2 and JS3 tanks that could go toe to toe with any German tank. (well maybe not the Jagdtiger, but everything else)
As far as Strategic Bombing goes, the posts above pretty much answered it. Although, its important to understand that the overall effect of Strategic bombing on Germany is still questionable. Germany's production was at its peak in mid-late 1944, so one can argue that all of the bombing since 42 didnt effect Germany's production as expected. Germany did a great job of dispersing thier Industry.
Another reason Strategic bombing took place, was to wear down the morale of the German citizens. (Hitler tried to do the same thing against London during the Blitz)
How much did the US contribute to winning the War? Well, in pure military power, not as much as Russia did. I read somewhere that 3 out of every 4 germans killed, were killed by the Russians. Now, as far as Lend Lease and our Industrial output, we did quite a bit. Not to mention Strateigc bombing of Germanys industries.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 03:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
The T-34 turned out to be one of the best tanks in history due to the fact that it was endlessly upgradeable, adaptable, and would keep chugging along forever.
The German Panther on the other hand, can be described as the single "best" tank of the war, on an even basis. No other tank combined mobility, protection, and firepower like the Panther V.
American tanks were almost unilaterally horrible. The Sherman main gun could only penetrate the armor of the German tanks from the rear. It was unlikely that the American tank would get a shot from the rear.
One story that sticks out in my mind, was of a lone Hunting Tiger (variant of the King Tiger that was made with a semi-traversable 128mm gun) designed for tank-killing purposes. From a well entrenced firing position on a hill, one tank was reponsible for the destruction of nearly an entire regiment of American tanks.
The Hunting Tiger in question here was eventually destroyed via air attack.
Air superiority wins ground wars. This has been proven.. the German tanks, while technically superior to the Allied tanks of all nations, were doomed to failure, both due to lack of numbers and lack of air superiority.
Anyways. I'm a huge WWII buff.
Adill - never thought you'd be one that knew this kinda stuff too! You guys are the shit.
Personal anecdote - in my AP U.S. History class way back in high school, well, maybe not <i>way</i> back, but like 3 years ago now, I used the term "Nips" to describe the Japanese. My teacher definitely did not like that. She was a damn liberal hippy though. What is up with putting liberals in charge of history classes anyways =P.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brolly Trusaiyan
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Location: Texas- H-town
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 03:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
gluck for prez Mr. DOle
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xzander NecroMonk
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 169
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 05:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Maelstrom wrote: | | Anyone wonder what could have happened if Hitler wouldnt have attacked Russia?. |
Or what if japan attacked russia when german did? What helped the russians was knowing that japan wasn't going to attack thus was able to move their armies from the east to moscow and other areas in the west.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
gentoo
Fresh Meat
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 3
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 08:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
Actually, tactical objects destroyed from air might have been 10%, what really did get destroyed were civil buildings.
Why did this happen, because a "misguided" bomb droped from a german bomber over Coventry (london), even thought there was a secret contract to avoid civial causalities in place. What happens if you bomb cities continuously for days? You KILL the moral of ppl. I think it was Himmler (sp?) who said:"If you see an enemy aircraft over our cities i will change my name to Mueller!" or similar quotes from Hitler "We will build so many aircrafts , the sky will change to black and the swallows have to go by foot!"
There were bombing tables with tactical scores in the english headquaters, cities which did not have any weapon factories but had major population got bombed for days, and dont even think this were misguided bombs, no Köln was hit so hard yet the "Kölner Dom" (big church) was not destroyed yet all the buildings around it crashed. An english pilot (for a documentary) said at the briefing they got told to safe such buildings, because we dont want "HIM" getting mad at us.
[/b]
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 09:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Personal anecdote - in my AP U.S. History class way back in high school, well, maybe not <i>way</i> back, but like 3 years ago now, I used the term "Nips" to describe the Japanese. My teacher definitely did not like that. She was a damn liberal hippy though. What is up with putting liberals in charge of history classes anyways =P. |
My AP U.S History techer, Mr. Karas, was a Vietnam vet and about as big of a Republican as you'll ever find. I swear the guy loved Reagan sooo much, it was sickening. I loved getting in my digs on Reagan whenever I could, saying he was senile and didn't know what was up past '85. He always refuted it... but apparently I got the last laugh. As we all know now, Reagan is senile 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Gossipmonger
Luke Warm
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Posts: 193
Location: The Balkans
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 11:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Torgo wrote: | | I think the largest tank battle in WWII was in Kursk 42, not 100% sure though. |
Prokhorovka is a village at the neck of the then Kursk salient. Operation Citadel was on July 1943. Technically it has been found to be a stalemate. The Germans failed to break through the deep soviet defences, both on the north and the south necks. A soviet counterattack at Orel, forced them to abandon the operation, leaving a large number of tanks that could be salvaged inside enemy lines. The battle of Kursk, despite being the largest tank battle ever, also marked the swansong of German armored tactics in the East. From then on, they were forced on the defensive, with the Soviets pouring huge amounts of materiel into the battlefield in a series of attacks, such as Operation Bagration that destroyed Army Group Centre.
As for strategic bombing, it is an operation to disrupt enemy logistics and industry. If you read Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" you will be able to see the full effect of Allied bombing on German targets. Strategic targets include railheads, factories, ports, warehouses, and of course, civilian targets to undermine morale. Bombing of defensive areas and targets would fall under tactical bombing, such as the destruction of the Panzer Lehr division in Normandy 44.
Maelstrom, you never cease to amaze me with your idiocy. The Germans fought all of their big campaigns while numerically inferior. In France and the Low Countries, the French army and the B.E.F. fielded more and heavier tanks than them, but they did not deploy them properly, and were significantly behind in combined arms operations, which the Germans pioneered. In the Soviet Union, the Germans were outnumbered by around 1 to 4 in tanks. Since German economy did not enter total war mode until 1943, they were outproduced by allied nations in a huge degree.
Their tanks were great engineering feats, but they were also too complex and required a large number of spare parts the german industry was not able to produce. They were plagued by many different versions of tanks, all of which required different parts, Pz IIIL, Pz IVH,J, Pz V (Panther) A,D,G, Panzer VI (Tiger), King Tiger (based on the Panther chassis). Add to those various assault guns and tank hunters, like the Hedger, Jagdpanzer, Ferdinand, and other versions based on obsolete tank chassis, like the Marder III, and you can see where the problem lay. In comparison, the Americans fielded just the M4 sherman and its variations as their main battle tank. It was not very good, and it was said that a german shell could penetrate its front armor plating and then come out of the back, and that one Panther took five Sherman kills to destroy, but if you are outproduced by 15 to 1 or more in a war of attrition, you have already lost. Similarly, the Soviets abandoned their KV1 and 2 heavy tanks to produce versions of the T34, which was upgunned to an 85mm gun by 1943. (The German tiger could destroy those in distances of up to 1km, but again, the Soviets fielded so many of them, and especially at Prokhorovka, where in the ensuing chaos distances closed to mere yards, the nazis lost their advantages). They also produced their own versions of assault artillery such as the SU-122, but not in the variety the Germans did. the JS1 and 2 heavy tanks only took part in the last days of the war, and had no impact on its course.
Also, if you notice, some time in the end of 1943, Germany tends not to be able to deploy planes in any effective numbers. Albert Speer claimed that with the resources wasted on various "super weapons" like the V1 and the V2, which produced results of marginal value to the war effort, they could have built thousands of fighter planes, thus stemming the allied strategic bombing, which by 1944 had left Germany virtually with no synthetic rubber, petrol, and ball bearings. If you have any other technical questions, let me know, always at your disposal!
As for the new trend in incriminating the Allied bomber offensive, I'll agree with Vekril, it's just a bunch of liberalist bs, trying to blame the planners for a large number of civilian deaths. With the number of crimes the Germans commited in the war, and the number of cities they destroyed (London, Coventry, Belgrade, Warsaw, almost all Soviet ones they managed to reach), not only the destruction of their cities was called for, they shouldn't have been given one penny in help after the war, but the communist threat made Marshall help them, so they wouldn't get rolled up by the Soviets.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Gossip you remind me of my new buddy Maelstorm, 2 idiots that made an account just to bash the French.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Gossipmonger
Luke Warm
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Posts: 193
Location: The Balkans
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
Heh, a*****e. First of all, I'm not bashing the French.
Second, you are not French, so even if I were bashing them, why would you give a shit, you are a CANADIAN!!!
Third, I made this account to be obnoxious to everyone.
Fourth, I will only respond seriously or with any kind of courtesy to historical subjects before 1945, since everything has gone pretty much to shit after that.
Fifth, you are a f*****g idiot. You were pulling facts and figures about the German army and WW2 out of your ass, apparently with no knowledge apart from watching Saving Private Ryan a few times, so I called you on it. It would be the same if I challenged you on sewer cleaning, I know nothing about it, and if I started writing b******t on the topic, you would answer me with the correct facts about it. On my use of expletives, see #3, and go f**k yourself with a baguette, you French-Canadian p***y. Surrendered to any Germans lately?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Maelstrom
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 4072
Location: Montréal
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for proving my point.
But the p***y is you posting anonymously cause you dont have the guts to tell your shit with your normal account.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Gossipmonger isn't anonymous. We all know who that is lol.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Gossipmonger
Luke Warm
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Posts: 193
Location: The Balkans
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
Er, this is my normal account d*****t, sorry I don't have 3k posts under it.
Now for the realm of anonymous posting. Is Maelstrom or Mealstorm or whatever your name as written on your passport? Do you include your real address and telephone number on your sig? I thought not. So guess what French f****t, you are anonymous too.
My former EQ name is of no significance, but if you had a quarter of a brain you would have understood.
And anyway, if we go to the sphere of fantasy, let's say that this was indeed a fake account, and my real account was Mr. Pimps. What would you do about it, give me a virtual beating? Or not be my friend anymore? Get a life, c**t.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
| The Gossipmonger wrote: | Er, this is my normal account d*****t, sorry I don't have 3k posts under it.
Now for the realm of anonymous posting. Is Maelstrom or Mealstorm or whatever your name as written on your passport? Do you include your real address and telephone number on your sig? I thought not. So guess what French f****t, you are anonymous too.
My former EQ name is of no significance, but if you had a quarter of a brain you would have understood.
And anyway, if we go to the sphere of fantasy, let's say that this was indeed a fake account, and my real account was Mr. Pimps. What would you do about it, give me a virtual beating? Or not be my friend anymore? Get a life, c**t. |
lol you fight about anything and everything.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Petr
Luke Warm
Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 102
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
To answer the questions...
1) Basically, what everyone else had said... the strategic bombing took place to reduce the german war machines output. Eventually, germany wasnt able to keep up with the production, plus they couldnt get enough oil because the allies kept the shipping lanes blocked.
2) It was a success, because as german resources got reduced, hence they werent able to keep producing their guns, bombs, ammo, tanks.. etc, and by Jan 1945, the allies had complete control of the skies, and that enabled them to pretty much bomb at will.
Now, knowing that your teacher is liberal, the viewpoint that they may come at you with is one of human loss of life (seems to be the favorite topic of liberals debating war).. specifically "innocent" life. The British did fire bomb the germans... part was retaliation for the germans fire bombing them... but, it was highly inaccurate, and like another post said, it wasnt really stopping the german war machine. The bombers, although were accurate, werent as accurate as what we have today. So, yes, im quite sure that targets were missed and a school or some such got hit... but if your teacher brings up that crap, press them for proof (many will just make generalizations and what not), and if they have it, fine. So "innocent" people were killed... it happens, that is war...
dont let them bully you, even if you are in the minority... what we did in WW2 was right and just, and if we didnt do it, the french would be speaking german right now, and so would the british.
petr
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Gossipmonger
Luke Warm
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Posts: 193
Location: The Balkans
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 12:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
Of course, that's why I post here 
If tomorrow the tide turns against war, I'll start bashing Iraq and the liberals. Or the Palestinians, or the French, I don't care! See #3 on my list, I want to be obnoxious, that's why I never follow up on my flames, getting into arguments over nothing is boring. This subject held a marginal interest for me, so I chose to make a few replies, even though that french coward chose to ignore the rest of my somewhat long post, and instead focused on that single line, where I proclaimed the truth by calling him a f*****g idiot. If he wasn't, maybe he would have learned something about the war. Now he is just wallowing in his own ignorance (and filth, clean your house frenchy, and for God's sake, install a bathroom).
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 15:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Adill - never thought you'd be one that knew this kinda stuff too! |
What the f**k is that supposed to mean!? :p
I'm not just a worthless stoner :/
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
xammer99
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 336
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 17:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
1.Why did the US and British forces adopt strategic bombing? What purpose did it serve?
It was multipurpose and aimed at not just the destruction of the german industrial complex but also at the demoralization of its people to break their will to fight. Ballbearing, aircraft, munitions, etc.. plants were all prime targets as well as oil refineries and anything else that could be used in the prosecution of war for the Germans.
However, what people often forget is that this was a total war senario. Because of the stakes, because of the actions taken in the lead up to it, and the stated goals of the Axis, there would be no quarter asked for or given. It was a fight where every resource of all involved nations was turned to war because it was the ultimate fight for survival and the winners getting to write the history of the world for the next century at least. People like to look back and think that such actions were avoidable and that the Allies were horrible people, etc... But the simple fact is that within the context of that war, it was kill or be killed, and all stops must be pulled out.
So, what purpose did it serve, to destroy Germany both militarily and economically because in a Total War, EVERYTHING a nation possesses gets bent towards fighting it. Few people can understand the concept these days, esspecially given Kennedy & McNamara's new concept of Limited War that proved so completely disasterous when first inacted. But that is now the paradigm underwhich many now view war, as something to be fought for limited objectives and with limited resources. WW2 was NOT that, WW2 was for the whole enchalada.
2. And evaluate thoroughly the contribution of strategic bombing to the success of the allied war effort.
The contribution of stragetic bombing was tremendous. It did destroy the german cities and lead to considerable drop off in production capability. While this did involve a tremendous loss of civilian life, do remember that it was a Total War, everyone was involved in the war effort on both sides. The destruction of ball bearing plants crippled the production of EVERYTHING. From new machinary, to trucks, to tanks, to air planes, to ships. Ballbearings are used in literally every facet of an industrial society. So the destruction of these plants, and the destruction of the city around it to prvent it from being rebuilt has a direct and telling effect.
Further, this strategic bombing had the added effect of reducing the recruitment pool of germany by killing off potential soldiers and factory workers. It also had the demoralizing effects, and though it did not break the will of the german people, it did greatly reduce their capabilities to produce. When you live 24/7 in fear of another bombing raid, you live on the edge and you are just not as effective of a worker. So not only are your factory workers tired and inefficent, by killing them off you force new ones to be found and the new ones are not nearly as effective as the newly dead experienced workers.
Further, it saved lives in the long run in the case of the Japanese. The destruction of Hiroshima & Nagasaki brought an immediate end to the war in the pacific without an actual invasion. Had an invasion been necessary, it would have been incredibly bloody and fighting from house to house & city to city. Further there was a 4 million man army waiting in china to be brought back to Japan. Yes, thats right, 4 MILLION men, that would have been needed to be put down by conventional arms. Even at a 4 to 1 casualty rate for American forces, that would still entailed upwards of half a million to a million men necessary just to defeat that force.
Further it would have given the soviets China & Japan. With a russian reorientation, they would have been in a position to enter china and stay there, not to mention korea as well, and very possibly Japan.
So, the strategic & nuclear bombing of Japan did unquestionably save lives. It saved the lives of millions of japanese soldiers in china who would have had to have been fought. It saved the lives of chinese as the russian & japanese armies slugged it out throughout china. It saved the lives of American soldiers & marines who would have had to invade japan and then fight up the length of the archipeligo.
So, given what would have had to have been done, 100,000 casualties was deemed a small price to pay. It also had the benefit of destroying two industrial complexes as well.
Is this unfortunate & tragic? Without question. Was it necessary within the context of a total war senario? Without question. The Japanese & Germans were out to conqueor the world. The Japanese stated goal was to create the Greater Pacific Co-Prosperty Sphere, out of China, Korea, SE Asia, the Philipenes, assorted pacific islands, etc... The Germans' stated goal was world conquest and the creation of a 1000 year reich. They swiftly conqueored europe and damn near pulled it off. Had they sunk Britain and Russia, they would have been uncontested in Europe and nothing America could have done about it except enter an arms race that would have made the Cold War's look like a bunch of kids collecting marbles.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ursar
Luke Warm
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 134
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 17:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
I was gonna throw in my 2 cents....but Xammer is a tuff act to follow... 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pags
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3260
|
|
Posted: 03/14/03 - 17:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
Nice post Xammer.
As far as an arms race with a Nazi europe, we wouldn't of stood a chance.
The main reason we were able to keep up with the Soviet Union during the cold war was due to the large amount of nuclear scientists that America brought back to the US to help us w/ the arms race. We provided these scientists with the clearing of their name from any war crimes, so they would escape persecution in exchange for technology.
The Soviets also exploited many german scientists after the war as well, but I believe America had the majority.
By the end of the war, Germany had a version of a B-2 bomber that could reach, and bomb New York City. The only reason New York never got bombed was because it wouldn't have affected the tide of the war, and their resources were far too scarce to produce enough to make a difference.
Germany's technology was incredible for the time. They had early versions of cruise missles, b-2 bombers, jet engined aircraft, and were beginning to produce a new type of submarine that had a 20 ft snorkel that would prevent the U-Boat from having to surface as much, which is when it was most vulnerable. America seized this prototype, I'm pretty sure it was the basic design for our first new main submarine after the year.
edit: Fixed a grammar error or two.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
