|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,634 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,634 Likes: 2 |
And her AAA armament was also lacking and of a WWI design. For example, the secondary armament on contemporary British and American BBs was "dual purpose," i.e, it also served as great AAA whereas the Bismarck's secondary (6.1") guns could only engage sea targets.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,792
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,792 |
I believe if they had the access to raw materials and the relative safety of our at home manufacturing war machine things might have been different. Nobody in the world could keep up with the overwhelming output of ships, tanks, planes, etc. that the US was able to put into battle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
Don't know where ar15 is getting his "facts" but they need to be checked.
Germany's loss was due more to bad strategic decisions than tactical. Even a cursory study will reveal the German's superiority in almost every facet of weaponry and training. However, numbers trump technology everytime, at least in that pre-atomic age.
The US was able to conquer more through manufacturing than anything else (not taking anything away from many excellent Allied soldiers). When you had the nearly inconceivable production capability that we had, with no fear of anyone bombing our factories, victory was inevitable. Course, it's more comforting to believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism.
As to the OP, as others have stated, many of the German generals can be admired militarily w/o condoning their ideology (and many were members of the National Socialist party 'in name' only and not staunch supporters of the Der Maniac).
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
German weapons and tactics were good, but I do not believe that they were as superior or original as everyone thinks. The Germans biggest asset was that they could adapt to the situation well. Their biggest weapon/technology advantage was to put radios in tanks. While the west was using hand signals in armored warfare, the Germans used radios. The French tanks were superior to German tanks in armor and firepower so the Germans adapted and used the 88 to eliminate French tanks. They may have actually picked this up from the Pole's who used 40mm Bofors guns against German tanks in September of 1939. The Germans made use of dive bombers for ground support but this was a tactic that was pioneered by the United States Marine Corps. US Navy and Marine Corps dive bomber pilots were the best in the world. While the German 88 was good, The US 90mm, British 3.7" and Soviet 85mm AA guns were just as good. When the Allies ran into superior German tanks they adapted and countered with rocket armed P-47 Thunderbolts, Hawker Typhoons and Ilysuion Stormivks. The US P-80 was superior to the ME-262 and if the war had lasted longer they would have met in combat. The US M26 Peshing was capable of taking on the Panther and Tiger on equal terms. The M4 Sherman and T34 were equal to the German MkIV panzer. American artillery was actuall the best in the world. For all of its prowess and techincal ability on land, the Germans lagged behind the Allies and Japan and Italy on the seas. The M4 Shermans that had gas engines�which was most of them�called Ronson lighters by the troops. Called cordite ammo fires by the designers� Cheaper and more reliable than the German tanks�so was the Russian T-34 which many say was the best tank of the war.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,828
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,828 |
Well most of the appeal and fascination with that period of time was really about how the German Army could take a huge pounding and in short order go on the offensive. For the most part they were well lead, but poorly served by the political leadership of the time. And many in side of German undermined that leader from the very start. Some here said the German Navy was not to successful at sea, I beg to differ. The Submarine force dam near won it, they for a time turned the Gulf of Mexico into a German Lake. It was so bad that 100 % of the Steel Production in 1942 went into building a pipe line for oil from the gulf of mexico to North East. Those Submariners called it "The Happy Time". We were loosing ships are a rate we could not sustain. Things like Radar turned the tide but with heavy losses. The Germans in Sept 1. 1939 has just 24 subs at sea. The Nazis were a horror by any way you wish to look at it, and so was the Soviet Union, they were worst by any measure you want to look at that too. But as the proverb goes, "The enemy of my Enemy, is my Friend" the only people in world war two to get it from both were the Poles. The Soviets planted the seeds for there own downfall, in places like Katyn Forrest.
Last edited by gmsemel; 12/10/11.
"Any idiot can face a crisis,it's the day-to-day living that wears you out."
Anton Chekhov
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 18,508
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 18,508 |
[bleep] the Nazis.
Especially the home grown ones.
They got what they asked for.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040 |
The Germans lost the battle of the Atlantic due to superior technology and tactics. Radar, sonar and hunter killer groups based around an escort carrier along with destroyers were able to prosecute contacts to a finish.
As far as the Bismarck, she was the most overrated battle ship of the war. If you think that she took a lot of punishment, study up on what it took to sink the Yamato and Mushashi. She was inferior to the modern US, British and Japanese battleships in armor, guns and especially fire control. She was used as a commerce raider and was under orders not to engage convoys if they were escorted by old British WW1 battleships. The Bismarcks sister ship was so impressive that she never ventured into the Atlantic. The smaller German battleship Scharnhorst was also sunk in combat on the open seas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 7,866 |
Nope, when comparing apples to apples (piston engines). The Spitfire evolved and always stayed ahead of comparable German fighters. For example, when the FW 190 first came out, it was superior to the Spitfire V, but the Brits developed the IX and subsequesnt Marks that always stayed ahead. The P-51 Mustang was far and away much better than anything the Germans fielded. And during the Battle OF Britain, the Spitfire was slightly superior to the 109 and blew by it with subsequent models which the 109 was never able to keep up.
True to some extent, but the technological edge was never great enough to offset pilot skill. Most planes had their own edge that could be exploited by pilots (P-47's dive and roll rate, 109's fuel injection early in the war, etc). The main Allied and Axis planes were close enough throughout the war to make it pilot vs. pilot thing rather than machine (course, that's always been pretty much true). What really hurt the Germans, then, was attrition of their experienced pilots. They didn't get to be rotated back home when they reached a certain score or level of fame. While our top guys were sent home to sell bonds and recuperate, the German pilots (and their ground troops) just had to keep going. And combat takes a murderous toll on even the young and talented. It's amazing so many of their top aces survived the war whether they were on the Eastern or Western front.
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Stupidity has no average...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040 |
I never said that they didn't lose to bad strategic descisions. I agree that they did. Thay were also out produced. I stand by my facts. I stated that while they were good, they were not the technological and tactical end all be all that many think they were.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,887
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,887 |
Tactically our aircooled Browning .30 cal. MG was more the equivalent to the MG42. The Sturmgewehr 44 came in too late to be an important factor. I'll take the .45 cal grease gun over the MP40 any time. Our pistols, grenades and heavy machineguns (.50 Cal) were better also.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
It is interesting to note that the Germans developed a number of brilliant weapons during wartime and while under siege (2 fronts and under heavy bombardment). Germany is not a large nation and was largely agricultural with a number of exemplary engineers. I once worked for a man who had been Chief Engineer on the V-2 at Peenemunde; we had a number of interesting discussions of the war and some interesting alternative outcomes!
Among the weapons developed under these adverse conditions were:
Me-162
Dornier 335
V-1
V-2
StG 44 (Sturmgewehr)
Type XXII submarines
Panzer V "Panther" tank
Panzer VI "Tiger" tank
Panzer VII "King Tiger" tank
Etc.
By contrast most (not all � the Atom bomb was one exception) of the US weapons were developed before (or very early into) WW2, though there were refined as the war progressed. But this was an advantage; mass production (quality) will generally trump new developments (quality). Consider the Russian T-34 tank; it was crude and inferior to many German tanks, but produced in great quantity, and it just kicked the heck out of the German tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,285 Likes: 1 |
The German Generals were very good, officers better than ours. The problem being that at the time those skills were most needed they were overruled by a corporal.
The weapons were the best, but that worked against them as they were too complicated and German standards too high. The might of the American and Russian industry produced lesser quality weapons but a whole bunch more of them.
There are two factors I consider key, but I don't hear much about. One is the American Garand, which raised our firepower by several orders of magnitude. The other is the 4 engine heavy bomber, or Germany's lack of it. Had Germany been able to reach across the Ural mountains to Russian industry the war on the eastern front might have been completely different.
Just like wars fought from our Whitehouse, dictating every detail of battle and maneuver, Hitler lost the war for Germany.
The older I become the more I am convinced that the voice of honor in a man's heart is the voice of GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
I have doubts about the superiority of German weapons; most German soldiers carried the 98K, I would prefer a Garand any time. The high cyclic rate of the vaunted MG42 simply used up ammo rapidly and made it difficult to control and hit anything. The late father of a friend who landed in the first wave at Normandy might beg to differ with you. The Germans did not seem to lack ammo and a lot of Americans would question how difficult it was to be hit!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
Their fighter planes were superior, so was their unequaled rocket technology and they were close to developing the A bomb.
Small details count too : their infantry helmet was the best, while the British helmet was the worst. I don't know how "close to developing the A bomb" the Germans were. They did have a program underway, but were never able to sustain criticality of the fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040 |
The M4 Shermans caught fire because of ammo storage issues, not necessarly gasoline. Once they started using wet storage for the ammo, the fires decrerased. The Tiger 88 and Pather 75 were still able to penetrate a Sherman at will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,464
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,464 |
Germany was well equipped for a short continental land war. But that's not the war the Nazis started, nor was it the war the Nazis got....
Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337 |
our projection of blitzkreig during the Iraqi massacre worked pretty well. obviously, there's good ideas that live on forever no matter which Country chooses to house them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,318
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,318 |
How close? I do not know either.
I suppose that it was fairly accurately assessed after the war.
Is it too ambitious or too naive to look for an honest politician? Or simply a useful one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,040 |
Yes the German army was resilient, I agree that they could take a pounding and counter attack. They were well lead, and their tactics on occasion were better, but I don't believe that they were the end all, be all supermen that some claim. From a tactical stand point, look at the battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle the world has ever known, they were beaten by superior tactics, not technology. Yes, I agree that the did have early sucesses in the battle of the Atlantic, but damn near winning is still losing. What did the German submariners call the time from late 1943 on, it was not "The Happy Time" By mid 1944 the battle of the Atlantic was lost. After mid 1944 goin out to sea for a German sub was a death sentence.
My mother is Polish and lived under German occupation as a little girl. My father was also Polish and spent WW2 in a Siberia labor camp as a little boy. His older teenage sisters had cut lumber in the Siberian forests. I understand very well what it meant to be Polish in WW2.
Last edited by ar15a292f; 12/10/11.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 21,810 |
How close? I do not know either.
I suppose that it was fairly accurately assessed after the war. The post WW2 Strategic Assessments described both Germany and Japan's nuclear efforts. They did refine uranium and had working reactors, but were never able to sustain criticality of the fuel, even experimentally. These reactors were very small, not at all like the large Y-12 and K-25 reactors at Oak Ridge TN. These plants were very large and produced enough fissile material for about 6 weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
76 members (6mmbrfan, 6MMWASP, 79S, 7mm_Loco, 444Matt, 2ndwind, 10 invisible),
1,539
guests, and
817
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,554
Posts18,510,418
Members74,002
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
