Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Nazi's, What is the appeal?

Way, way too much self-medication....

VAnimrod,

Please refrain from quoting anything Gus writes -- I have him on ignore.

I think reading his posts (even second hand) must kill brain cells.



John

What he said!

We never did put our men into decent tanks during WWII.

The Sherman was as good as any of the German tanks except the Tigers. The Tigers were superior in armament and armor, but couldn't stay in service and ran out of gas.

The Centurian was also days away at the end of the war, and would have beaten Tigers.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

All Germans were not Nazis. All Nazis were not Germans. The Nazis were Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The Communists were also Socialists, like we will be in the next few years. The German people have a remarkable history of culture & achievements, spanning over centuries, as do many other nationalities. The "father" of the Nazi Party (Hitler), was actually Austrian born. The rise of the Nazi Party was the fault of the Allied Powers from the first World War. If they had allowed the German people to retain at least some dignity after the first war, Nazi extremism would not have had an opportunity to fester into the horror of a second world war.

Actually, the French strategy regarding the Maginot fortifications was a complete success. The goal was to prevent the Germans from advancing quickly across favorable terrain, and seizing the coal and industrial areas in eastern France. It envisioned forcing any invasion to come through Belgium & the Ardennes. The Germans considered offensive operations against the CORF fortifications pointless, and when they finally tried, they were unsuccessful (despite the absence of supporting artillery and interval troops). Every major Maginot fort was still operational, under French control, at the armistice.

Keep in mind that the forts were largely paid for from pre-1935 budgets. Had that money been spent on tanks or planes, it would have been a waste; well obsolete by the time war broke out. The fortifications were a simple solution to difficult problem: France has a far smaller population; has a far lower birthrate, a situation compounded by the proportionately higher casualties taken by the French Army in WW1 than by the Germans. The Maginot Line allowed the the defense of a large portion of the French frontier, with a fraction of the manpower that would have otherwise been required. On the downside, it did result in a boatload of highly technically trained soldiers being pinned down, and contributed the sluggish development of offensive planning in the French Army. On the other hand, that distaste for offensive operations was also a result of the French trying to reclaim ground in WW1.

The end problem was that the French Army wasn't properly organized, or positioned (and had an obsolete infantry doctrine, although DeGaulle and others were changing that) when the Maginot Line did what it was supposed to: channel the Germans elsewhere.

On the subject of American Tanks... the M-26 was a match for any tank of the war. But for the sluggishness of the US Army high command, and doctrinal shortcomings, it could have been available in quantity by Normandy. As it was, a few made it into action during the last weeks of the war, with impressive results.

Germans held 10 of the 58 major fortifications of the line at the Armistice.

In Kursk the Russians had received information that the Germans had a plan for attack. They built defenses 250km deep and heavily mined approaches. The Germans attacked with about a 1:1 force ratio because they had trouble getting tanks and supplies before the battle. A ratio of 1:1 is bound to defeat the attacking force. Blitzkrieg in design was to concentrate forces in such a manner as you achieve a 5:1 superiority in a localized area. That only really works with an element of surprise.


Hitler lost that battle, mostly because he wasted his forces on an ego trip by the siege of Stalingrad. That costly ego trip cost him his 6th army.

Read Death Trap for a diffferent view on the Sherman.

The M-4 Sherman�s were the best we had, but not as good as the Tigers or Tiger IIs. They were outgunned (75mm vs. HV 88mm guns), thinner armor and, used gasoline vs. diesel. All in all, they were an inferior tank. They did make up for this in numbers; we cranked them out like peanuts and could overwhelm the Germans - same as the Russians did with their T-38's.

What was that old boy's name,...Belmon ?

He was there, and "Did That" in Shermans, and I'd give creedence to his evaluations.

Here's a Good Nazi, ...or at least about to be.


German Wehrmacht General Anton Dostler is tied to a stake before his execution by a firing squad in a stockade in Aversa, Italy, on December 1, 1945. The General, Commander of the 75th Army Corps, was sentenced to death by an United States Military Commission in Rome for having ordered the shooting of 15 unarmed American prisoners of war, in La Spezia, Italy, on March 26, 1944. (AP Photo)

It was Patton who had the final say on the M-26. He had trained his men for 2+ years with the Sherman and didn't want to spend time retraining. RE: Tanks radios. The U.S. and Britian had radios in their tanks but they were AM, good long range but subject to interference and static. The Germans used FM radios, shorter range but much better reception RE: French defences. The oringial plans called for the marginot line to extend to the Atlantic. It was Belgium objections that halted it at their border(remember the Germans had attack thru Belgium in WW1)

Yes, he's the one.(Belton I think) Said our losses in tanks were 500 percent over expected losses. The Army only considered it a loss to be if the tank was unrepairable. Tanks where a shot had pierced the armour and the crew burned alive was not a loss as the bodies were removed, wiring replaced, hole welded over, and new paint applied. The smell of death could not be removed.

only the losers get tried for war crimes.

Nope, the Panther was vastly superior and the PkW IV with the 75mm High Velocity gun was also superior. Now the T-34 is a different story

Death Trap notes the inability of the Sherman to face the larger Tigers and their 88s. It was superior or par to Panzers. The delay in the Pershing was bad, no doubt, but not Patton that did that. The Pershing was not available when the US entered the war, its prototype, the T20, didn't appear until 1942.

I disagree. My source said Eisehhower left the final decision to Patton. Mid 1944 was plenty of time to get production up to anticipated needed levels. Shermans didn't face just Tigers and 88s.

Von Braun was very respected. In Huntsville, AL. the home of Redstone Arsenal, which was very much involved in the space race and missle developement he was remembered. The city of Huntsville name a big sportscenter downtown after him.